THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE.
VOLUME TWENTY-TWO.
INDIANA
LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, Feb. 6, 1885 - 10 a.m.THE STATE'S TREASURE.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the reports pending at the adjournment yesterday.
Mr. WILLARD: In discussing the question of the substitution of the minority for the majority report. I shall endeavor to be brief: but in the remarks I shall make I desire to have no interruption, and therefore I request Senators if they have any questions to ask they will defer their inquiries until I have finished, when I shall be happy to respond. I have ever regarded this question of investigating the funds in the hands of the Treasurer of the State beyond the point of ascertaining the amount, as a matter instigated simply for the manufacture of political capital. I believe this Legislature has the right to know what every dollar of the State's money is safe and secure; and I believe when the fact is learned the inquiry should stop there. It is true there may have been some dereliction from law on the part of the Treasurer of State, as there has been confessedly upon the part of the Republican Governor of State in the discharge of his duty to the State, but the real, central question of all this investigation resolves itself into this one single inquiry: Are the funds of the State safe? Is the State protected against loss? If it is, then I claim we are not authorized to go further, under the statute which gives both the Governor and either branch of the Legislature the right to inquire into this matter. In advance of the reports of the committee, and even before the matter was ascertained a Democratic member of the House of Representatives introduced a bill raising the bond of the State Treasurer to the sum of $1 000 000. In the House it was passed by a unanimous vote. It came to the Senate, and even under the assurance of the Treasurer of State that he doubted whether he could give so large a bond, it was passed with an amendment making the bond half a million, by a vote of two to one. I stood upon this floor and by every means in my power tried to fix the bond at the first named sum. The Senate disagreed with me and I bowed in submission to its decision, and from that time to the present on every occasion when I thought I could advance the bill I have called it up, and now I find that bill going to the Governor with a provision requiring the Treasurer of State to give a $700,000 bond, thus protecting the State against any loss of funds in his hands. How much further ought we to go? What more can be demanded? The only fact shown in either of these reports with which the Senate has anything to do is the fact that $491 000 is in the hands of the State Treasurer. Has any reason been shown - I mean not rumors - to doubt that these funds are there? On the contrary, both reports show that he has in his hands $5 111 more than he is charged with on the books of the Auditor of State. I spoke for an investigation to find out what sums were due the State, and I have spoken for the protection of these sums absolutely. The Democratic party has investigated the Treasurer of State so far as the statute permits him to be investigated and add to the security of the public funds they have placed his bond higher by $200 000 than the amount in his hands. With this record I believe we can safely go to the people and bear all the slander and innuendos of the Republican ex page: 156[View Page 156] Governor and the Republican minority on this floor or elsewhere.
Mr. HUSTON: It was not my intention when this question was first sprung upon the Senate to take any part in the discussion. I had hoped it would not assume a political character, but it certainly is now a question that has divided this Senate in accordance with their political preferences We have before us to reports - a majority and minority report, but are not considering a motion to substitute the minority for the majority report. That has been the question before the Senate this morning and yesterday afternoon, and I leave it to the candid judgment of the Senate if the speakers upon the opposite side have confined themselves to the question. A stranger coming upon this floor would naturally have thought ex Governor Porter was on trial for the commission of a crime. The majority on this floor do not deny or disprove a single charge made in the minority report. Many charges have been made against the Republican party. The Republican party is not afraid to stand upon the record it has made, not ony upon this question, but upon all other questions. The opposition are not satisfied to speak of the question at issue, but go back to attack that great and good man who retires to private life with the confidence and respect of the entire people, Albert G. Porter, but that grand and gallant leader, James G. Blaine, [applause] they can't attach his public record - a man that for twenty years has been in public life. [Laughter] Democrats may well laugh now, but the time will come when James G. Blaine will yet cause them to laugh on the other side of their face. The Republican party is not dead, nor is James G. Blaine dead, nor are the priciples James G. Blaine advocates dead. They were not satisfied to attach James G. Blaine's public life, but they had to resort to the extent of going into the sanctity of his household, and attack him -
Mr. Magee: Will you allow a question?
Mr. HUSTON: No, I will take the same course of the Democratic speaker who preceded me. This question has assumed a political significance, and I want every Republican member on this floor to define his position upon this question. It was charged that Republicans are afraid to father the minority report, but they will find out the Republican members are not afraid to father the report they have made. We believe this minority reprot should be adopted, for we think it is demanded in the interest of the people of Indiana. The law provides that the State Treasurer shall keep the funds of the State on hand in money. Has he got the State's money on hand? There as not been a single Senator on this floor who has had the audacity to claim that John J. Cooper had the money. It was even shown that on yesterday a warrant drawn on the State Treasury was protested for want of funds with which to make payment. He had certificates of special deposit for $6,000 but the minority of the committee were not given a change to ascertain whether it was his money or somebody else's. The people of Indiana are looking with great interest to see the solution of this question; the people are interested in it, and I sincerely hope and trust that Democratic members will see it to their interest to vote in support of this minority report.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: I did not expect to take the floor on this occasion and to participate in the discussion of the merits of the two reports submitted by the Special Committee. I have read both reports and have listened attentively to the debate which has taken place in regard to their merits, but I must confess that neither the majority report nor the minority report fully satisfies me, and that I would much prefer to get a fuller, more thorough, and at the same time entirely impartial, statement of the condition of our State Treasury, before I would like to vote for either. While I am fully as much convinced as the Senator from Jennings, or Gibson, or Huntington, who have so eloquently advocated the adoption of the majority report, that our present State Treasurer has managed the affairs of his high and responsible office with as much prudence and integrity as any of his predecessors in office, and that the public funds are entirely safe and secure in his custody, so that no loss to the State will ever accrue through any negligence or criminal action of his, yet the report of the majority of the committee leaves on the mind of the reader a certain feeling of vagueness, uncertainty and ambiguity as to the character and cash value of the Treasurer's assets, so that I would prefer a clear, plainer, more explicit and detailed exhibit of these assets, good and sure as they undoubtedly are. On the other hand, the minority report, which nearly in every line displays a tinge of partisan hostility, not only to the Treasurer himself, but also to the majority of the committee associated with the minority fails to convince me of the correctness of its allegations and the substantial foundation of its fears and apprehensions from the very fact that its undeniable partisan spirit detracts from the ability with which it is written and from the value of the charges preferred in the report. I am here in this Senate not as a partisan - not as a Democrat or Republican - blinded by the desire to help either my part or a great State official out of a difficulty, but I am here as one of fifty Senators, to whom the citizens of Indiana have delegated the power and entrusted the care to watch over their interests and to guard their interests against loss of injury. In every vote which I have cast I have conscientiously asked myself whether to the best of convictions and judgement, this vote should be given or not, always willing to be enlightened and corrected in case of error, and this same course I intend to pursue this page: 157[View Page 157] time. And since neither of the reports which the committee have submitted, neither the report advocated by the Senators from Gibson and Jennings and Huntington, nor the minority report so persistently advocated by the Senator from Wayne and his party advocates I intend to offer as a substitute to the motion made by the Senator from Parke the following resolution:
Whereas, The special committee appointed to consider that portion of ex-Governor Porter's message which refers to the State Treasury have submitted a majority and minority report as the result of their investigation;
Whereas, Either of these reports, on account the short time alloted to the investigation of the important questions involved, fails to satisfy this Senate as to the true condition of affairs in the State Treasury;
Whereas, We have the fullest confidence in the honesty, integrity and probity of State Treasurer John J. Cooper and are convinced that he can give as satisfactory an account of the conditions of the State Treasury and of the safety of the public funds entrusted to his official care as any of his predecessors in office;
whereas,The great party which has twice honored and said John J. Cooper by an election to the high and honorable office of a custodian of the public funds of the State feels aggrieved and insuled by the aspersions on his character as a public officer, and deems it due to its honor to prove the utter groundlessness of the fears and apprehension concerning the existence of a large deficiency in the Treasury, expressed in the minority report; and
Wheras, This great party, whenever its character is thus assailed and its honor sullied by open charges, as contained in the minority report of the special committee, or by the inuendoes contained in the message of ex-Governor Porter, never shrinks from its duty to the people of this State to establish a full, air, thorough and impartial investigation of all the facts connected with a charge involving large public interests and creating a feeing of uneasiness in the minds of the people;
Resolved, That the two reports above named be referred to a special committee of five, to be appointed by the President of the Senate, to further investigate he condition of the State Treasury, with power to send for persons and papers and with instructions to employ three experienced accountants at a salary of not more than $6 per day, and to proceed to a full and thorough investigation of the State Treasury, to verify the vouchers submitted to them and to ascertain the exact cash value of the money, papers and valuables exhibited by the said John J. Cooper as the property of the State in his custody.
Resolved, That the investigation of said committee shall effect the principal, the money really paid into the hands of the State Treasurer, and shall not enter into any questions, whether interest on said principal or any part of it was paid to him or not.
Resolved, That the three experts employed by the special committee shall make their report to the special committee appointed them no later than ten days before the termination of the regular session of this General Assembly
Let the resolution be carried on in a spirit of justice, fairness and impartiality, with out fear or favor, worthy both of the high character of the officer whose official conduct is to be investigated, and of the dignity of the Senate. I have not the least doubt that such an investigation, carried on in such a spirit, will lead to the full exoneration of Mr. Cooper, and will satisfy public opinion that the high and responsible office which he administers is to-day in safe hands, and that the large amount of public funds entrusted to him is in no danger of being lost or recklessly jeopardized
I move the adoption of the resolution as read:
Mr. FOULKE: I am in full accord with the Senator from Tippecanoe who desires to have this matter referred to another committee. The only result that we desire and that the whole people desire, is that there shall be an examination of that Treasury. While we believe every statement made the minority report has been justified by the information we received and the facts we know from the investigation of the assets we were permitted to make, not for the sake of investigation, but because we believe, aye, we know, it is demanded by the best interests of the State for which we will sacrifice anything else. We say, amend that report almost any way you like, and which will give the investigation necessary. We don't do it for political capital. We don't ask for anything better, nor could we ever have you in a better place than now, if that were our purpose. What we want to know is that the money of the State is safe. So far as the main resolution of the Senator from Tippecanoe goes, I will most heartily give my co-operation, for I believe has had done honor to the Senate and to the Democratic party of Indiana in demanding that investigation. This resolution as to the investigation we are to a man, I think, in favor. It has, however, been coupled with a number of preambles for the purpose, as it would appear (I don't charge that upon the Senator from Tippecanoe), but it looks as if the same spirit was trying to get Republicans to vote against the resolution because we don't agree with the preamble, [Reads.] There is one objection to that preamble. It is not our business as a Senate to decide a case before we have investigated it. We have no business to pronounce him innocent. An opinion as to guilt or innocence would disqualify any man from sitting on a jury, and it is hardly competent for this Senate to express that opinion before making an inquiry. Of course a man is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proven against him.
Mr. SMITH, of Jennings, raised the point of order that the Committee making these reports was a Joint Committee. The house has acted upon the reports and has discharged its parts of the committee. The substitute proposes to refer this matter to a Senate committee, and is out of order.
Mr. SELLERS: I desire the Senator from Gibson shall occupy my thirty minutes. At the close of his remarks I shall claim time for the purpose of moving the previous question.
Mr. McOULLOUGH (in concluding his speech) said: As was suggested by my page: 158[View Page 158] friend, the Senator from White, (Mr. Sellers) I will move the previous question.
Mr. MAGEE: I would ask the Senator to withdraw that motion. I wish to move to strike out a part of the minority report.
Mr. McCULLOUGH and several Senators: "No," "no," "no,"
Mr. MAGEE: If the majority here want to stifle all discussion and inquiry, let take the responsibility.
The demand for the previous question was seconded by the Senate, and the main question being ordered -
The motion to substitute the minority report for the majority report was rejected by yeas 15, nays 25.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. FOWLER said: I have not been in the Senate much during the discussion of this question owing to my not being able to be here. I am not satisfied with either of these reports, but in view of the fact that the Governor has full authority to make an investigation at any time to ascertain the condition of the State Treasury, I vote "no"
Mr. MAGEE, when his name was called, said: I stated yesterday that neither one of these reports was satisfactory to myself. I had no opportunity to offer the amendment I desired to modify the report of the minority. The Senator form Laporte and others objected to my doing so this morning. As I had no opportunity of moving to separate a portion of the minority report, which is very objectionable, from that which I think is proper, nevertheless, under the circumstances, not be able to concur with the majority report, I vote "aye."
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was called said: I had a great deal of interest in this discussion and from my confidence in Senators, without a reference to their politics from either side, I have been very much troubled, and I went to a financial adviser - a gentleman known all over this Nation - and that is William H. English, and asked him some questions, and he told me that John J. Cooper stood fairer and conducted the State Treasury better than any other man that had ever been there with the exception of one man, and that was Matthew Brett; that his affairs were all sound, and all he said he had in the banks he had, and he didn't know a safer man in the Union than John J. Cooper to manage the Treasury of Indiana. Under these circumstances I feel well pleased to vote "no"
The vote was then announced as above.
The majority report was concurred in by yeas 26, nays 15.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: In explanation of my vote I would like to say that in voting for the majority report of this committee I do it in order not to give any misconstruction as to my idea. I have arrived at the same time conclusion as the majority, however will hereafter move a resolution for an investigation.
