HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, March 5, 1885 - 9 a. m.THE STATE MILITIA.
The unfinished business was consideration of the bill [S. 88] to regulate the State militia.
Mr. BROWNING: I do not see how this bill can pass. The Constitution says that no colored men shall belong to it; and while I have no prejudice against that race, yet I am sworn to support the Constitution, and for that reason I can not support this bill.
Mr. TOWNSEND: Does not the Constitu- page: 304[View Page 304]tion of the United States declare this State constitutional provision void? And are you not sworn to support the United States Constitution?
Mr. BROWNING: I do not believe that the United States has any right to interfere with this State right.
Mr. PATTEN: I am a member of the G. A. R, and my post does not wish this bill. This is an unjust measure. It will throw an extra burden on the people. Do the men who labor ask for a military institution in Indiana? No. It is only the people in the cities who ask for it - and for what purpose? It is for the purpose of crushing out labor. It is a direct blow at wage laborers, and if they dare raise their voices to oppression this militia is to declare a riot and charge upon the laborers. The bill declares that the officers are to be chosen by an Examining Board. This is very objectionable. The militia, if there is one, should select its own officers. Then there is tax exemption, which would entail much loss to the State. We should rather encourage our young men to thinking rather than to marching. It is proposed to donate a large sum to purchase uniforms for these men to strut in. It will amount to over $100,000 per annum. It is an institution to rob the school fund. I hope the members of this House, especially the Democratic members, will assert themselves and see that this bill does not pass. We need have no fears of mobs under Democratic rule. It is not a militia but a standing army.
Mr. GORDON: I do not desire to make any attack without cause upon this bill. I do think that a close scrutiny of the bill will develop no reason that will be approved by the people why the bill should pass. If the bill pass, it should have, on one or two grounds, that either it is an ornament to the State or that it is needed. Will anyone say that because other States have it we should have it as an ornament, to satisfy the whims of a few? We are told that there is to be an appropriation of but $10,000. Don't delude yourself. Money will be demanded constantly and it is but the beginning of stupenduous military organizations of the State. In private arguments the supporters of the bill say, "give us a start." The cost to the State will not be less than $25 000 per annum. Even though you have 17,000 petitioners for the bill don't forget the 500 000 voters who have not been heard from. An organization to secure petitions against it would far outweigh the petitions for it. Don't let it be said that on the very day a Democratic administration came into power that the Indiana Assembly organized a standing army; we do not need it. There is no foreign war coming on, nor is there an impending riot. No man need charge that the Democrats on this floor are fearing labor riots. Go into the States which have militia malitia , and they are no more peaceful than Indiana. Take Ohio, for instance, with its Cincinnati and Hocking Valley riots, and yet that that State pays $60,000 per year for its militia. It is the same in Pennsylvania. The cost of uniforms will be at least $50,000, then there is the $10 000 appropriation and the release from poll tax. It will be too great a burden for the taxpayer. Does Marion County want this tax on its property for the sake of a parade through the streets of Indianapolis? I have that confidence in the people which precludes any fear of riotous destruction of property.
Mr. GOODING: The gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Gordon) has stated this question most thoroughly. What is the necessity of enacting this bill into a law? Don't delude yourselves with the idea that the law can be repealed in two years. The military organizations will then be here with demands. Henry Clay once warned the people against military power. In time of war I am for soldiers; but in times of peace let us have peace. It is twenty years since the war, and even our Republican friends have discovered that it is over. What necessity is then for this bill now? It will make Indiana a general encampment for this militia. Some speak of riots in cities, where some corporation of great power is keeping men at starvation's door and want "protection." The Sheriff can call every man in the county to his aid to suppress riot. The Democratic party is for the people, and it can not afford to pass this bill.
Mr. SMITH, of Warrick: Being a member of the Military Committee, and the only smaller opposing this unjust Military bill, I will offer some thoughts against it. I represent a county which does not favor a standing army. I followed the old flag with my musket. But these are times of peace. You will find a great many men braver in peace than in war. It has been urged that other States pay for military organizations, but as we do not need it I can not see why we should favor it. We should vote down the bill and save the taxpayer thousands of dollars. We want no such State dignity.
Mr. LOYD: I would like to support a reasonable bill regarding the militia, but I would rather encourage something of benefit to the State. I would rather vote to organize farmers' sons into a company for better stock raising or a company of carpenter^ sons or the like. But such a scheme would not meet with favor here. I do not care to "point with pride" to any military organization. I happen to be adjutant of a post of G. A. R, and it does not favor it. We should not contemplate the organization of military even, I say, though the workingmen were organizing to protect themselves against oppression. Let it not be sent abroad that we oppose any labor organization.
Mr. DITTEMORE: While I am too old to take part in military parade, yet I favor the education of the young men. I am no alarmist I am willing to trust the State officers of whatever political party. When property is destroyed and the lives of inno- page: 305[View Page 305]cent ones threatened, then I want the military to quell such trouble. I like to treat this subject fairly. I am not sure that a company would be organized in my county, but my people are not afraid of the bill.
Mr. GARRISON: I am the representative of a county which has an interest in this measure. It seems that this bill is an inroad against the principles of the Democratic party. We have provided our children with books instead of swords, and we are capable of self government. There is a dispute between capital and labor. I believe it would be calamitous alike to put the military in the hands of capital or in the hands of labor.
Mr. MURPHY: I am a member of the G. A. R., but I see no necessity for the bill
Mr. HARRELL: We are not here to make military laws. We do not need such, and the people will not favor it. The expense will be heavy and the good nothing. I have studied the bill carefully, but I can not find the need of the law. I believe the bill to be unconstitutional.
Mr. PENDLETON: I am an advocate of this bill. The opposition has drawn largely upon imagination regarding the bill and the cost. The long list of officers is complimentary - not one cent of tax upon the people. The only argument I have heard against this bill is the constitutionality of admitting colored men; but that may be so declared by the Supreme Court and stricken out We have five companies in Indianapolis, and they are all laboring men, and hard laboring men.
Mr. BARNEY: As the representative of 17,000 old soldiers, I must say that they are almost unanimously in favor of this bill. In the seventy-one counties where petitions come from, every old soldier is in favor of it. Go back before the war, when we were sleeping in peace, and a volcano suddenly bursts under our feet. The militia was the backbone of the war of 1812. We may need a militia suddenly in Indiana. No man regards brass buttons when he is going to be shot at. There is nothing in the ornament argument.
The bill passed — yeas, 56; nays, 35.
Mr. ADAMS, explaining his vote, said: Inasmuch as I hold in my hand a petition in favor of this bill from eighty-six taxpayers of my county, headed by the heaviest taxpayers of the county, I vote "aye."
Mr. BEST: Because I believe that it is demanded, I vote "aye."
Mr. BOOE: Because I am opposed to military powers in times of peace; because it is against the principles of our Government to equip and maintain large military forces; because it endangers the future peace of our country, in that it engenders a military spirit; because it will largely increase our burden of taxation; because this is an era of greatest peace and such a vast military force is not needed; because, lastly, the people do not demand it, but it is only asked by red-tape military companies, I vote "no."
Mr. BOYD: Because I think it needful, I vote "aye."
Mr. BROWNING: Because I believe it unconstitutional, and because I am opposed to taxing old soldiers to support home guards, I vote "no."
Mr. COPELAND: Being opposed to howling mobs and riots, and because I think a power should be put in the hands of the Governor, I vote "aye."
Mr. FRANKLIN: The bill is not free from objection, but it is better than no bill. I vote "aye."
Mr. HOBAN: I thought last night that I would vote for this bill, but as I think it anti-Democratic, and as I think that morality is better than firearms, and thinking it unnecessary, I vote "no."
Mr. KELLISON: Because I am not in favor of filling the laboring men with bullets instead of bread, because history has taught me that all other Republics have perished because of military tactics and standing armies, I vote "no."
Mr. MAUK, of Wayne: Because I have a petition signed by 350 people of the great Quaker county which Mr Gooding spoke of, and because I represent, with my colleague, those people, and not Mr. Gooding, I vote "aye."
Mr. McHENRY: Though a large petition was sent to me asking the passage of this bill, yet I believe it was signed under a misapprehension; I vote "no."
Mr. McMICHAEL: I have a petition of 250 names, from all parties of St. Joseph County, asking for the passage of this bill. I vote "aye."
Mr. OSBORN: I voted against the bill before, because I had a misapprehension. I vote for it now, because I understand it, and because the Senate has relieved it of its objectionable features. I believe in a system of protection to life and property. I vote "aye."
Mr. PASSAGE: Because the militia in this State has never been used for improper purposes, and because I don't believe it will be, I vote "aye."
Mr. REEVES: Because my people demand it, though I have some misgivings about the bill, I vote "aye."
Mr. ROBINSON: Because we should cultivate the acts of peace instead of the theory of war, I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: Because Constitution says that citizens may take up arms in their defense; because its spirit was indorsed by Thomas Jefferson, not because I fear riots at home; because I wish our army to be fully equipped and ready, I vote "aye."
Mr. STALEY: I am a man of peace, but in the time of peace prepare for war. The people of Indiana demand the law. I hold a petition signed by 175 men from my county, mostly working men, asking it: therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. TOWNSEND: Because I do not entertain the misgivings expressed, here, to-day; page: 306[View Page 306] because I am not afraid of the soldier; for precautionary reasons; and that I may be allowed a little personality, I think I should vote opposite to Mr. Browning. I vote "aye."
Mr. WILLIAMS: Because I believe it contrary to the spirit of our country, I vote "aye."
The vote was then announced as above.
So the bill passed.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
CLAIMS.
Mr. CRECELIUS, from the Committee on Mileage and Accounts, presented a concurrent resolution [H. R. 31] recommending that the Doorkeeper of the House and T. W. Tomlinson, short-hand reporter, be allowed certain sums on account of the Knightstown investigation.
The resolution was adopted.
THE STATE MILITIA.
Mr. McMULLEN moved to reconsider the vote passing the bill [S. 88] regarding the militia of the State.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved to lay the motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to by - yeas 51, nays 44.
THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. PATTEN moved that the House at 3 o'clock take up the bill [H. R. 479] to make general appropriation for the State government.
On motion by Mr. DITTEMORE the motion was laid on the table - yeas, 56; nays, 39.
CLARK AND FLOYD COURT TERMS.
The Senate amendments to the bill [H. R. 430] changing the time of holding courts in Floyd and Clark Counties were concurred in.
U. S. GRANT.
The Senate concurrent resolution expressing a vote of thanks to Congress for placing General Grant on the retired list was adopted.
DISSOLVING AN ASSOCIATION.
The bill [S. 325] authorizing the dissolution of the Eastern Indiana Agricultural Association was read the third time
Mr HARRELL siad said that the bill should not pass, as a majority of the citizens opposed it.
Mr. HAWORTH favored the bill because it was the wish of his constituents.
The bill passed by yeas 78, nays 10.
Mr. BARNEY explaining his vote said: All over northern Indiana are some old fair grounds which are an eyesore, and will remain so because of some stubborn member. I vote "aye."
BONDS FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
The bill [S 7] to authorize County Commissioners to issue bonds for public buildings, was read the third time and passed - yeas, 79; nays, 1.
PROTECTION TO STREAMS.
Mr. Hanlon's bill [H. R. 229] concerning the planting of willows on the banks of streams was read the third time and passed — yeas, 87; nays, 1.
TAXATION.
Mr. Gordon's bill [H. R. 318] concerning taxation was read the third time.
Mr. GORDON: This bill takes the Board of Equalization from the County Commissioners and Circuit Judge and puts it in the hands of the County Commissioners and Assessors.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe: I think the bill is not as good as the old law.
Mr FRENCH believed that it would be an improvement if the bill should pass.
Mr DONHOST: The present law has been in our county an improvement over the old law.
The bill was defeated - yeas, 28; nays, 53.
Mr. ADAMS, explaining his vote, said that the new law was too much like a man trying his own case in a lower court, and then sitting as a judge in a higher court upon appeal. He therefore voted "no."
ASSIGNMENTS.
Mr. Twineham's bill [H. R. 220] to provide for voluntary assignments, was read the third time and passed — yeas, 77; nays, 16.
COMMON SCHOOLS
Mr. TONER'S bill [H. R. 481] to provide for a general system of public schools, was read the third time and passed by yeas 56, nays 34.
GRAVEL ROADS.
Mr MOCK'S bill [H R 117] concerning gravel roads, was read the third time and passed - yeas, 78; nays, 6.
The House adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
