THE'GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. HEFFREN moved to reconsider the vote by which the report of the Conference Committee on bill [H. R. 302], the general appropriation bill was concurred in by the House.
Mr. FRAZER stated by way of explanation that the purpose of the motion was to reconsider the report of the Conference Committee on the general appropriation bill. The object, as he understood it, was to defeat the general appropriation bill. He thought the motion should not pass for the reason that this Conference report is satisfactory to a great majority of the members of both Houses. This bill has been agreed to by a large majority of both Houses, and there is no reason why it should be reconsidered.
Mr. HEFFREN said: I had hoped that I would not be compelled to make this motion. I am opposed to an extra session. But circumstances have occurred in the other branch of this General Assembly that Imperatively call for this motion. To any one who has witnessed the scenes in the Senate during the past twenty-four hours he would be recreant to every principle of duty to his Democratic brethren of the Senate if he did not do this. Could the people of this State have seen the presiding officer by brute force trample under foot every rule of that body, every principle of parliamentary law: could they have seen him take an enrolled bill passed by both Houses of this General Assembly, and deliberately thrust it into his pocket and declare it never should become a law; when I am credibly informed that another functionary still higher than the President of the Senate is also of that opinion, and will interpose a veto so late that this General Assembly can not act upon it, and when there could have been seen a Superintendent of Police, two Captains of Police, and twenty-one policemen, backed up by the Sheriff of Marion County, on the floor to overawe the Democratic Senator, and to give moral and material aid to the conspirators, I am ready to let the Governor of Indiana assume the responsibilities, and say to him: "You shall not thus obstruct legislation, and if you do you shall have no appropriation." I shall stand by my party and unequivocally support its policy.
Mr. SHIVELY had hoped that this part of the General Assembly would endeavor to take care of its own proceedings, and that fairness and justice should prevail at all times. He thought the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Heffren] had violated all parliamentary law in his criticism upon the acts of the presiding officer of the Senate of this General Assembly. It illy became the gentleman from Washington to criticise the action of the President of the Senate since he himself was a party but a few days ago to acts equally as malicious as those he now charges upon that officer. When this metropolitan police bill and several other bills were read the third time and put upon their passage, the Democratic Speaker of this House persistently refused to recognize Republican members on this floor although they eagerly sought such recognition. If the Democrats wish to take the responsibility of an extra session, by reconsidering the action on the appropriation bill, why very well, go on. The Senate has been guided in its ruling by the precedent set by the Democratic Speaker of this House.
Mr GIBSON was very much surprised that gentlemen should be worked up over a little thing of this kind. Members are very much mistaken if they think there is no reason for this consideration but to force an extra session of the Legislature. It is simply because there are some provisions in the bill which are objectionable. He desired to second the criticism of the action that bag been going on lit the other end of the building. Such action would justify any action on the part of the members of this House. He was willing, taking into consideration the action in the Senate, to share his part of the responsibility of an extra session. Whenever a man has not brains enough to comprehend what is just to the majority of the Senate-overriding the majority by infamous decisions-he should be criticised. Such a brainless coward is the man who occupies the Chair in the other end of the building.
Mr. HUSTON was of the opinion that the minority might as well look at this thing calmly and not get into an ill humor about it; but he thought every member should have the privilege of expressing his opinion. The question before the House is whether or not we shall reconsider the vote on the general appropriation bill. Now, there Is no member on this floor who will not readily admit that the result would be to force an extra session. He believed that the attempt was to defeat the appropriation bill-to get it in such a condition that the Democratic members of this General Assembly may say to the Governor: "If you dare not sign and return to us this metropolitan police bill, which was crowded through the House under the 'gag-law,' at once, we will defeat the appropriation bill." If the Democrats had alternated to reconsider this question at the proper time he would have voted for such reconsideration. He thought, with the precedent the Speaker of the House had set in refusing to recognize Republicans on the floor of this House, the Democratic members should not wince nor complain of arbitrary ruling in the other end of this building.
Mr. BOWERS voted for the appropriation bill, and had been since that time frequently importuned by Republican members to move to reconsider the vote. He was now ready and willing to vote for such reconsideration.
Mr. COPELAND thought it came with very poor grace for a Democratic member to charge open handed revolution against the Republican party or its representatives on this floor; that it ill becomes the Democratic members on this floor to denounce Lieutenant Governor Hanna, a gallant soldier in the late War, as a brainless coward, a revolutionist and dictator. It ill becomes you, who from the beginning of the session have embraced every opportunity to thrust on the minority of this House that most infamous of all rules, the gag-law, under the leadership of a rampant, unrepentant ex-Son of Liberty.
Mr. HEFFREN rose to a question of order and demanded that the words just spoken by the gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Copeland] be taken down, and declaring the language used unparliamentary.
The Speaker commanded the Clerk to take down the language used by Mr. Copeland, which the Speaker decided to be unparliamentary, and ordered Mr. Copeland to sit down.
Mr. COPELAND answered that in Russia it might do to order a man to sit down, but that such tyrannical methods would not be tolerated in the General Assembly of the great State of Indiana. When you gentlemanly rule that I am out of order I shall take my seat, but not until then.
The SPEAKER declared the gentleman to be out of order.
Mr. HEFFREN said: I merely rise to make a single statement. I do not propose now to so into political or a political discussion-time enough for that yet. I have to say of the intemperate language of the member from Jefferson [Mr. Copeland] that it reminds me of an occurrence I witnessed last summer. I was reposing on a grassy plat and looking up into the foliage of a pine tree, a little bird alighted on the top-most swinging bough and sang out, "Tom-tit," "torn-tit " In an instance he threw his head down and his tall up and sang out, "Tom-tit." I must say that I could not tell "which end the song came from." and I am at equal loss to tell where the clamor and noise. In unparliamentary language, comes from that was poured forth by the member from Jefferson. I pose him.
Mr. PATTEN was one of the members who vot page: 277[View Page 277]ed against the appropriation bill. He did it because he thought it was his duty. He desired to say that it was not his desire to have an extra Session. '
Mr. JEWETT was of the opinion that in all the discussion there had been no reason advanced why this motion to reconsider should prevail. He coined heartily in what gentlemen had said about the scenes in the other end of the building going down in history as one of the worst exhibitions of petty tyranny ever perpetrated. He believed that the members were not in the right mood to discuss this question further at present, and made an ineffectual motion to postpone the question until 10 o'clock to morrow.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, believed that such a thing as repealing the general appropriation bill had never occurred. He hoped that the second step would not be taken in this revolutionary measure,
Mr. WILS0N, of Marion, had likened to the discussion of this question and had heard, he was sorry to say many things that had no bearing upon the question under consideration. He hoped there would not be an extra session. He could not see that any good would come of an extra session, and if the Senate and Governor would act promptly and without delay there will be a way out of this difficulty. He moved the previous question, which was seconded by the House.
The previous question was ordered by a vote of yeas, 54; nays, 33.
Under the operations of the previous question the motion to reconsider the vote on the concurrence in the Conference Committee report was agreed to by yeas, 67; nays, 41.
On motion by Mr. HEFFREN the report was laid on the table by yeas, 57; nays, 40.
