A CORRECTION OF THE JOURNAL.
Mr HILLIGASS, who said: I desire to state that the journal is not right as to recording my vote on the resolution offered by the Senator from Brown [Mr. Duncan]. I am recorded as voting for the resolution, when in fact I think every Senator will recognize the fact that I voted against every proposition that came up on removal of the Doorkeeper until the final vote selecting Mr. Edmonds. I ask to have the journal corrected so as to show I voted against the resolution.
Mr. SPANN thought it right and proper for the Senator to explain his vote on the floor so as to put himself right before the Senate and the world, but it is not right or proper to correct the journal, to which he objected.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I think the record ought to Si-and unless there is unanimous consent, to the change.
Mr. VAN VORHIS: I have no doubt but that the Senator intended to vote as he says; bull must say the record shows just as he voted. I way watching particularly that vote, and know whereof I speak when I say the Senator voted as the journal shows. And I was surprised. I think it due that the Senator's explanation should be made, and that his explanation that he intended to vote otherwise should go upon the journals of the Senate.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I think the Senator from Marion [Mr. Van Vorhis] is mistaken, I certainly knew what I was doing at that time, and if a response when my name was called led him to believe I was voting for the resolution, it came from somebody else than myself, I ask as a matter of justice to myself that the journal be corrected and I hope no Senator will object. I would not desire to have any Senator wrong upon the record.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Let us see if we can't fix it this way: we can't well go behind the returns we acted upon, but if the Senate will give consent let the Senator [Mr. Hilligass] change his vote, in the event it would not change the result. I don't think any man has any right to change the result Or let him make a statement in writing and put it on the record. The Senator for Marion,[Mr. Van Vorhis] said he voted the the other way. I can't recollect.
Mr. VOYLES: The journal ought to speak the truth.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: If the Senator voted "no" the journal ought to say that; but the journal ought not to say he voted "yes" when he voted "no."
Mr. VOYLES: I am satisfied the Senator from Marion [Mr. Van Vorhis] is in error.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The best testimony would be the return made to the officer of the Senate.
Mr. BELL cited a precedent where there was a bill reported as passed on the last day of a session in which a bill could be passed, where a Senator was recorded as having voted for the bill-and a house bill too-who came in the next morning insisting he had not voted for the bill. After thorough discussion and presentation of authorities the record was changed his vote was placed against the bill and the law failed for that reason. While this proposed change may make s particular difference, I think it is within the power of the Senate, in every case, to have the record speak the truth. I will take a brother Senator's word about what his vote was, because a man who would make the statement that he is improperly recorded, when such was not the truth, would not be fit for any gentleman to associate with in a Legislative or any other body. Unless it is apparent the Senator is mistaken his statement ought to be received as true. I would not care a fig for this except for the precedent. Now if the Senate itself does not have full control of the journal-if it may not at any time before its final approval of the journal, without question from any source, make the journal speak the exact truth, then this Senate is at the mercy of some inefficient, careless or corruptt Clerk. I don't mean to say we have such a Clerk, but to point out the danger if we should have one and this right should not be extended. It would be entirely wrong to question our power over the journal-until it is finally approved, to page: 147[View Page 147] make it speak the exact truth. If there be a doubt as to the fact it is right for the Senate to vote on the testimony. In the absence of unusually strong testimony showing a Senator is mistaken his statement should be taken as true. But suppose the statement of the Senator be questioned, and we have an opposite statement from another Senator on the same point, then the question of fact comes before Senate.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Then you have the Secretary of the Senate.
Mr. BELL: I acknowledge the force to a certain extent of the fact that we have a roll-call made by a Secretary of the Senate. I don't want it to go unquestioned, because it may have some weight in determining the fact, but it has nothing of conclusiveness about it at all. We all know when there is any confusion or noise in the Chamber, how easy it if for the Clerk to make a mistake in his record Pie is but a finger, so to speak, on the right hand of the Senate, and no mistake of any Clerk can effect the right of the Senate to correct its journal. Here is a matter of fact for us to determine. We have the right to make the journal speak the exact truth, we might institute an investigation into the facts if it were a matter of sufficient importance. I speak only because of the Importance of acting so as not to set a bad precedent.
Mr. VAN VORHIS: I do not want to be understood in any sense as calling into question the word of the Senator from Huntington [Mr. Hilligass]. I think that under the excitement of the moment for he was considerably excited, that he does not know just exactly how he did vote, but that he voted as he now says is a mistake. I have no question he is honest in his belief he voted as he now states, but I was so situated when that vote was being taken, and watching the vote particularly to hear that gentlemen on that side were voting "aye" on that question, and I heard an affirmative response in answer to the call of Senator Hilligass' name, and was surprised when it was announced. There are other gentlemen on this side of the House who observed just exactly the same thing. Of course, what the Senator from Allen and Whitley [Mr. Bell] says about the record speaking the exact truth, there is no question about that; but the question is, what is the truth? I have no objection, if not taken as a precedent, that the Senator shall have the right to record his vote as he now says he intended to vote. But that he voted as recorded I thought it was due to the Clerk I should state as I have stated.
Mr. BROWN, without stating anything as to what is right or wrong on this question, hoped the Senator from Rush [Mr. Spann] would withdraw his objection, and allow the journal to be corrected as desired by the Senator from Huntington [Mr. Hilligass], and we agree that it will not be taken as a precedent. We do this now for the purpose of allowing a brother Senator to stand on the record as he desires.
Mr. SPANN withdrew his objection.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: By unanimous consent, Senator Hilligass changes his vote on the roll call.
Mr. HENRY: There is another correction. On the point of order made by the Senator from Clinton [Mr. Marvin] that no Doorkeeper could be elected by a resolution. He waived that and therefore the journal misstates the point of order.
Mr. DUNCAN: The first point of order raised by the Senator from Clinton [Mr Marvin] was that my resolution was not in order. The Chair decided I had leave to introduce the resolution because the Senate had just declared it would proceed at once to the election of a Doorkeeper. Then the Senator from Clinton raised the point of order that we could not elect an officer of the Senate by a resolution.
Mr. BROWN: That is the newspaper report, also.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I recollect it the way Senator Duncan has it.
Mr. HENRY: There was a ruling only on the one question.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I think that is the way it was.
Mr. MARVIN: I did not waive any point I made.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: The Senator raised a point that the Doorkeeper could not be elected by a resolution, but it was not acted upon. I don't think I passed on that question. The question is: Shall the min lies stand, as far as read and corrected, as the minutes of me Senate? It is so ordered. The Secretary has made a mark on the Journal up to where it is read and approved, and the Committee will have to examine the balance of it.
