text:
Vol. IV INDIANAPOLIS, FEB. 7, 1861 No. 10
The SPEAKER announced the order of the consideration of the remainder of the reports of the Committee of Thirteen.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I trust it will not be denied by any gentleman on this floor, that I have been extremely modest in my pretensions since the commencement of the session. I have no doubt this meed will be accorded to me. During this exciting discussion, I have not expressed an opinion, for this reason: I cannot see any good that can possibly come from debate. The minds of gentlemen on this floor are fixed, made up, established and no argument can change their opinion. And I believe, sir, that mere appeals to the passions and prejudices but tend to destroy the harmony and interrupt the progress of legislation. And now, after listening to the eloquent stump speech which I recognize in the report of the gentleman from Washington, I think no gentleman on this floor can fail to perceive a spirit of rebellion and treason against the Federal Government breathing throughout the entire report. Hence I rise to move that the report be unqualifiedly rejected by the House.
Mr. DOBBINS. Mr. Speaker, I trust that we shall be able to meet this inomentons question without appealing to party feelings, passions and prejudices, so much dreaded by the gentleman from Laporte. I remember, sir, that in the fore part of this day, it was indicated by the votes of our Republican friends, that this shall be made,a party question, and only a party question. But, sir, I trust we have higher and purer motives, and that they will yet produce in this House a readiness to sacrifice on the altar of our country's good all our party prejudices. For the question is not how we shall preserve our party organization; but it is a far higher and nobler question. It is the question of the preservation of our Federal Union. This is the momentous question presented for our consideration to-day. And, I trust, since we all represent a conservative constituency, we are all of us determined that the Union shall be preserved. I trust, at least, that I shall be able to meet the question in that spirit. Let me tell my Republican friends, that within a few days past, in the other end of this building, I have heard similar taunts to that just uttered by the gentleman from Laporte. I have heard the Democracy charged with the act of treason to their country,simply because they were willing to enter into a convention for compromise and conciliation with the States of Virginia, Kentucky, and others loyal to the Union, Simply for this cause, Mr. Speaker, we are charged, and our constituents are charged, with aiding and abetting treason, and with being traitors ourselves. Why, sir, if I should say-and I trust I shall not give offence by putting it hypothetically-if I should say that Republicans, by acting in concert with Wendell Phillips and Lloyd Garrison-that by their sympathyzing with such men, they are guilty of high treason, I suppose they would take it as very offensive. But I do not deal in epithets here. I have to meet and consider a question that excludes them. I trust we shall all meet this question like men, and stand upon oar manhood, determined never to sacrifice or surrender any right of the State of Indiana, under the Constitution. And what we claim for Indiana, in the name of God and patriotism, let us not withhold from Kentucky, Virginia, or any other slaveholding State now loyal to the Constitution. We do not intend, by the convention proposed, to present propositions for compromise to States in open rebellion ; but we do present compromises to those States yet acting with us for the purpose of keeping off civil war. But, sir, the spirit which I have seen manifested, and to which I have adverted, must lead to division, and that is the spirit that would maintain, at all hazards and every expense, the Republican party. It seems to me that this spirit manifested by the majority here, runs through every Republican speech in the other end of the Capitol; and therefore, I think this charge of treason comes from them with a very bad grace.
Let us look at the question a moment. Why is this difficulty upon us? You on the Republican side for the last ten years have been advocating a centralization of power in this Union-a power that shall take from the people of the Territories and the States, rights that belong to them, and concentrate their exercise at the Federal Capital. You wish the Congress of the United States to legislate upon the local rights of the people. You wish to give to the Federal Government that sovereign page: 148[View Page 148] power which belongs to the people only. Your advocacy of this doctrine has caused the distant South to advocate the extreme on the other side. Hence, there is between, your extreme men of the North, and your extreme men of the South, a collision; and the only thing that can preserve the Union of these States intact, is the sentiment of compromise which is developing amongst those who stand between your extremes. On these two wings of the party of extremes rests the responsibility for the difficulties that are upon us today.
As to the reports presented by this Committee of Thirteen, I do not concur in everything in the minority report. I do not concur in that part of it censuring the ministers of the gospel. Yet I know that many of the ministers of the church of my affections have done wrong. Still I do not believe in censuring them. Let them go. Let the responsibility for their action be with themselves and God. But while I do not concur in that portion of it, I think the minority report is right in principle. We state in it that we are opposed to coercion in the sense in which the word is now applied to the Southern States. That we are opposed to driving the people of those States like slaves into a Union where they believe they can. not enjoy their rights. But I suppose we shall have commissioners from those States from various considerations; from Kentucky, Tennessee-from the conservative States North, and from nearly all the Southern States. I was raised in that section. I have been a citizen of Indiana but about seven or eight years. I am not here, however, to speak for a section, but for the whole country. Then, let me tell you, sir, that when you advocate a policy that looks to making war on the South, you advocate a policy that will not meet my sanction, nor the sanction of those I represent. I speak plainly. I expect to meet this issue as a man, and I think we had better meet it to-day, at once, and decide it finally.
Now, sir, take up the report of the majority, and there you will see an entire dodging of the question at issue. In that report you fail to meet the State of Virginia as brethren, in a fraternal spirit. You fail to meet her request. You simply present to her something that has no substance. You tell her, also, that all the resources of the State of Indiana shall be given to the General Government for the purpose of making war upon the seceding States.
Mr. ROBERTS (interposing.) I understand the gentleman to say he is not in favor of coercion. Am I to understand from-that, that he is opposed to the enforcement of the laws ?
Mr. DOBBINS, I am easily embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, when addressing myself to a question of so much importance. I will state, in reply to the gentleman, that when the Union of these States was formed, there were certain conditions settled between the States and the Federal Government. The Federal Government agreed that she would not encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the several States agreed that, they would abide by the laws of the Federal Government These conditions stand written in the history of the country. Let us read them, and see if these conditions attached to the original compact have been violated-see if the South have had any cause to complain. I do not come here to justify those States in open rebellion, but I am authorized to say, that in the opinion of the people of the border States, they have a right to complain of the manner in which their institution of slavery has been treaty by the men of the North ; they have a right to complain in so far as they have been misrepresented by the newspapers and stump orators of the North. Now, I will answer the gentleman's question: Yes; I am in favor of the enforcement of the laws for the perpetuity Of the Government, if such enforcement do not lead us into civil war, to imbrue our hands in the blood of our Southern brethren.
Mr. Speaker, in the minority report we present the Crittenden amendment as being a basis of compromise acceptable to the border States. What is the Crittenden amendment? I know you say it establishes slavery; and I suppose, from your votes to-day, that before you would permit slavery to be recognized, you would be willing that the pillars of our Federal Government should crumble and fall. It divides the Territories entirely to the Pacific. It gives to the people of the slave States all the Territories south of the line of 36:30, and it gives to the people of the Northern States all the Territories north of that line.
Mr. SHERMAN, (interposing.) I ask the gentleman to explain what the Crittenden amendment is.
Mr. DOBBINS. Some gentlemen cannot be satisfied, I suppose, with any explanation I could make. It establishes a, geographical line, and provides that north of that line the people of the Northern States shall have for their inheritance all the territories dedicated to freedom: and that all the territories south of that line the people of the Southern States shall have for their inheritance, to dedicate it, if they please, to slavery. And as a compromise, this is to be incorporated into the Federal Constitution, and become the supreme law of the land. When this shall be done, sir, then the thunder of the Republican party will cease. Then the slavery agitation will cease. Then Republicans can no longer stand up and preach to the people of the North against the encroachments of slavery, and pander to their prejudices and passions against their Southern brethren. Then we of the North will have all the territories north of that line for our purposes, and they of the South will have all the territories south .of it yielded to them. Sir, I ask Republicans here, Are you willing to stand upon that as a basis of settlement? No sir. But you would page: 149[View Page 149] do so willingly, if it were not for the fact, that when the slavery agitation is hushed, you know you cannot meet us before the people on the principles that will then be left in the Chicago platform,-from the fact that if that is taken from it, the platform falls to the ground.
But sir, as for ray individual position, I do not accept the Crittenden proposition as a first principle. I hold a different view from some of my Democratic friends. I take it that, under our Constitution, we are all brethren; that there is an equality of rights amongst white men; that we all have equal rights to emigrate to those territories and enjoy them together, with all our institutions, Southern as well as Northern. But I am willing to yield up those principles I hold dear, and accept as a, compromise the establishment of slavery southward, and the prohibition of it northward, of the proposed line.
Mr. Speaker, I have not, on any occasion, spoken half an hour since I have been in my place this session; and I do not now intend to speak the alloted 30 minutes. I speak from the impulse of the moment. I rose simply to ask the majority here to surrender not principle but mere passion, prejudice that party pride which they have exhibited here by their votes to surrender it for their country-for our common country.
Mr. MOODY did not intend to detain the House long. He agreed with the gentleman from Laporte, in one thing here, that should meet with general condemnation. He accorded the right of speech in the expression of opinion. But here was a question of maintaining the Constitution, the laws, and the Union; and the man that would not stand with us, he proclaimed as a traitor. He made no personal charge. Here was no question of concession, but simply whether we will stand up for the Union and its flag, and no man here or elsewhere had a right to differ with us. Every man was bound to stand up and maintain the Constitution.
Mr. HEFFREN. Suppose the gentleman were in South Carolina to-day, what would he say, if required by the Federal Government, to take part in the preservation of the Union?
Mr. MOODY. If he were a South Carolinian, he would be none the less an American citizen. He would expostulate against treason, just as he would in Indiana. If it requires the strong arm to put down rebellion, he was ready to ready to use it.
He believed this Government would be maintained.
He discussed not the political question. The verdict on that had been rendered and recorded. The only question now was whether the Union and the Constitution shall be preserved. Could gentleman point to any thing done by the State of Indiana to alienate the South?
Mr. DOBBINS. Do yon not demand all the Territories?
Mr. MOODY. The free white laboring men demand them. Unfortunately for the gentleman's party, the laboring men have been found arrayed against it. The gentleman was mistaken in his estimate of the feeling of the Republican party, when he said we advocated the centralization of power. On the contrary, the Republican party, has ever been in favor of State Rights. He (Mr. M.) was in favor of the enforcement of the laws. If that was coercion the gentleman had it. He denied the right of coercion. If the right to enforce the laws were conceded, the power to prevent secession must be understood. You could not make war on rebels. It was quelling rebellion-not making war.
Mr. DOBBINS. Were the fathers in the revolution rebels ?
Mr. MOODY. Did the gentleman place the South Carolinians alongside of the fathers of this Republic ? It might be a good Christian part to accept the proposition to restore the Missouri Compromise, which was wrongfully broken down by the Democratic party. But they would do more now. They would establish slavery. Since the verdict of the country was in our favor, he never would, by his vote permit the virgin soil of the common territories to be tainted with slavery. As for the alleged grievances of the South, he believed personal liberty bills to be unconstitutional and void. They were enacted in a spirit of retaliation, and should be stricken from the statute books.
Mr. STOTSENBERG proposed to amend the majority report, (the Senate resolutions,) by substituting an application to Congress for a convention to amend the Constitution of the United States.
[His speech thereupon is reserved for revision.]
Mr. FRASIER obtained the floor.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Warden of the State Prison, and another from the Superintendent of the Blind Asylum, responding to resolutions of the House; the former promising a more detailed communication, and the latter appointing next Friday at 3 o'clock p. m., for the time of the exhibition of the blind pupils before the members of the General Assembly, at the Institute.
The House adjourned.
FRIDAY, February 1, 1861.On motion by Mr. CONNER, the House amendment to his bill, [S. 97] introduced and passed yesterday, was read and concurred in.
Mr. JONE.S presented resolutions adopted by a late Union meeting in Columbus, proposing a National Convention, &c.,which were read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations under the rule.
By Mr, CRAVENS, from citizens of Jeffer page: 150[View Page 150]son, praying an amendment of the law, so that creditors in magistrates' courts may sue in the township where the debtor resides, or where the debt was contracted; which was read and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
By Mr. ANTHONY, from citizens of Clark county, which was referred without reading, to the Committee on the State Prison.
By Mr. HULL, from citizens of Ripley county, praying for protection against the stock of railroad companies ; which was read and referred to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. CLAYPOOL, from the Committee on Banks, returned his bill [S. 86]-described on page 105 of these Reports-with amendments recommending passage.
Mr. TARKINGTON moved to amend the amendment by providing that the banks shall deposit $1 for every $1 circulation, instead of $1,10.
Mr. SLACK objected to the amendment, with ten per cent, security, banks have been breaking in this State.
Mr. CLAYPOOL explained the provisions of the bill, and stated that they will increase and add to the security of the bill holder.
Mr. MARCH. I am disposed to favor this bill as reported, but are opposed to the amendment offered by the Senator from Monroe, [Mr. Tarkington.]
Mr. WHITE opposed the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. SLACK made an ineffectual motion to lay on the table and print 200 copies.
Mr. CONLEY. My opinion is, that this act affords better security to the bill holder, than the provisions of the present law. I hope the amendment to the amendment will not be adopted.
Mr. TARKINGTON offered the amendment, not with the intention to benefit bankers, but to guard the interests of the masses of the people. Indiana bonds are better to bank upon by 20 per cent, than any other bonds in the market, therefore it is good security, dollar for dollar, with the individual liability clause. This bill is a better one than has ever been introduced in the Indiana Legislature-harder upon bankers, and better for the people.
Mr. STEELE. There are several all important provisions in this bill. The plates of the bank should never go into the hands of its officers at all; they should remain with the Auditor, and never go into the hands of the bank, as this bill provides. Another amendment secures the bill holder, even should the bills of a bank be repudiated, and its affairs closed up by the State Auditor. Another amendment allows one-sixth to be issued in small bills, as is the case with the Bank of the State. Indiana 5 per cent bonds are now 93c.-83 1-3 is the par value. In 1866, Indiana must make provision for the payment of her Internal Improvement debt.
The vote rejecting the motion to print was reconsidered, and 200 copies of the bill and amendments were ordered printed.
Mr. BLAIR called up his resolution, submitted yesterday, relating to the change of the order of business, and it was adopted.
Mr. MARCH, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Jones's bill, [S. 77,] with an amendment striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting an entire new bill, compelling parties to commence suit in the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts in the county where one or more of the parties immediately reside.
Also reporting a bill [S. 98] to amend sections 13 and 14 of the Practice act, approved June 9, 1852, having for its object the same provisions for townships as are contained in the above bill as relating to counties.
Mr. MURRAY believed that law would meet the approbation of the entire State.
The committee report was concurred in.
Mr. CONLEY offered a resolution, which was adopted by yeas 25, nays 17-directing the Doorkeeper to furnish each member with three dollars' worth of postage stamps.
Mr. MURRAY offered a, resolution, which was adopted, instructing the Committee on Finance, by actual inspection, to ascertain the actual indebtedness of the State, and what amount of the public funds have been devoted from their legitimate purpose so as to report a bill providing for the reinstatement of all such funds to their original purpose.
Mr. TARKINGTON called up his resolution, submitted yesterday, providing for one session per day-from 9 till 1 o'clock; and modified it at the suggestion of Mr. BEARSS, so that on Saturdays the session shall be from 9 till 11, and on Mondays from 2 till 5 o'clock.
The resolution, as modified, was adopted by yeas 24, nays 18.
[Mr. LINE presented a petition against paying a tax upon turnpike roads going and returning from church, which was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges, without reading.]
Mr. ANTHONY offered a resolution, which was adopted by consent, directing the Committee on the State Library to examine the accounts of the State Librarian, &c.
Mr. CLAYPOOL offered a resolution, which was adopted by consent, directing the Committee on Education to inquire into the expediency of so amending the School law as to permit each county to retain for its own use the entire amount of money paid by them for page: 151[View Page 151]school purposes, and inquiring of the Judiciary whether such a change would be constitutional.
Mr. BEARSS submitted a preamble and resolution reciting that whereas the architect employed by the joint State Prison Committee has intimated that he has been refused the privilege of examining the plans, specifications, &c., and whereas the committee cannot arrive at the proper conclusions without the aid of an examination by said architect; therefore resolved, that the architect be authorized in the name of the State to demand all such specifications, plans, &c., as may enable him to make his estimates, that the employees about the prison be directed to surrender the same, &c.
Mr. WOLFE suggested that probably the architect had no legal right to them.
Mr. COBB was inclined to think the resolution is premature.
Mr. Bearss sent to the Secretary's desk a letter from the architect, which was read, stating that no opportunity had been given him to inform himself of the matters connected with his mission; in fact all and everything that would give him any light was carefully kept out of his sight, &c.
Mr. SLACK. This joint resolution reflects severely upon a member of the Board of Control, and before we do that we had better know what we are doing. Make it in the form of a request, and I have no doubt but that it will be acceded to.
Mr. BEARSS thought the officers were desirous of preventing an investigation, and those gentlemen should be made to disgorge those papers at once.
Mr. HAMILTON. I want a full investigation of this matter. I have no objection to the prison remaining in Michigan City if it is the best position for it.
Mr. COBB. I am not willing to jump at conclusions without evidence. I am unwilling to vote for this resolution with the preamble attached, for the reason I know nothing about the facts, and for another reason we can easily obtain the evidence with regard to this, and be able to act properly in this matter.
Messrs. Teegarden and Anthony favored the resolution.
Mr. WOLFE moved to refer the resolution to the State Prison Committee,Messrs. Anthony and Murray opposed the reference, and after further remarks by Messrs. Tarkington and Line-
Mr. CULVER. As far as this question, in reference to the papers is concerned, I understand they are all here, and it strikes me that in one hour after the adjournment if the committee were brought together, the truth of the allegations can certainly be ascertained.
Mr. COBB made an ineffectual motion-yeas 16, nays 14-to strike out the preamble.
On motion by Mr. MURRAY the motion to refer was laid on the table-yeas 20, nays 13.
The resolution was adopted.
Mr. CONLEY offered a resolution, which was adopted by consent, requesting the Committee on Organization of Courts to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law, as to require clerks to make a complete record of the settlement of such estates, payment for the same to be made out of the County Treasury.
Mr. MILLER offered a resolution, which was adopted, authorizing the joint Committee on Education to employ one clerk who shall act for both Committees.
Mr. HULL offered a resolution, which was adopted, instructing the Committee on Temperance to examine if there is, and if not to provide proper penalties for the violation of sections 8 and 9 of the Liquor act of March 5, 1859.
And then-
On motion the Senate adjourned.
FRIDAY, February 1, 1861.Mr. 8TOTSENBERG entered his motion to reconsider the vote indefinitely postponing the bill to amend section 476 of the practice act; and he entered another motion to reconsider Mr. Cason's bill [35] to amend the 288th section of the practice act so as to admit parties in civil actions to testify in their own behalf.
The SPEAKER suggested 11 o'clock as the proper time for the orders of the day to be taken up and referred to the necessity of such a fixed rule, in the large number of bills before the House which could not be acted on without it.
Mr. NEBEKER presented the petition of sundry Republicans of Jeffersonville, with reference to State Prison affairs, and the necessity of revising the militia law; which was ordered to the Committee of Thirteen.
On motion of Mr. ROBERTS, the petition of A. J. Cotton, presented by him yesterday, was taken from the table and referred to the Committee on Education.
By Mr. VEATCH, returning the resolution inquiring whether a law making a specified period to entitle a cttizen to a vote would be constitutional, and reporting the opinion that any such act would be unconstitutional; but that a law might be enacted declaring what shall be deemed evidence of residence, in the case of transient, persons having no fixed resdence.
He also returned the resolution inquiring into the expediency of a law requiring a residence of 60 days in the county, and not page: 152[View Page 152] less than 30 days in the township in which a man may offer to vote, and reported, that the 2d section of the 2d article of the Constitution fixes the qualifications of a voter, and the Legislature has no right to fix the residence. A residence in the township is all the Constitution requires, and a residence of one day is as valid as a residence of a year. But the Committee would state, that in the case of transient persons a law may be enacted as to what shall be deemed and taken as a residence, and that the object sought in the resolution may to a great extent be obtained in that way.
Mr. EDSON, returning Mr. Wood's bill [71] to amend the 14th section of the Misdemeanor act-[merely changing the penalty for destroying timber, so as to make it discretionary with the Court. The law now fixes it at five times the value of the timber]-with a favorable recommendation.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed, and these several reports were concurred in.
Mr. GROVER (by unanimous consent) submitted an order that the Committee on Education be authorized to employ a clerk for such time as they may need the same. He said the clerk was to serve the joint committee. And as they were now engaged in a revision of the school law, he invited gentlemen having suggestions to present them.
Mr. STOTSENBERG, from the Committee on Organization of Courts of Justice, returned the bill to repeal the act for the return of juries to the Common Pleas Court at the third day of the term, approved March 5, 1859, and reported that the present law provides a proper, sufficient and economical method for summoning juries; that it would not be expedient to legislate on the subject at this time ; and that the bill be laid on the table.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. MOODY, from the Committee on Swamp Lands, returned the petition of John I. Morrison, S. W. Holmes, and others, asking for an appropriation to pay for removing a mill dam on the Muscatatack river, and reported that there does not appear sufficient reason in said petitions to warrant the appropriation.
Mr. HEFFREN hoped the report would be laid on the table till these petitioners could be heard.
Mr. MOODY supposed the money asked for belonged to that county. If there was merit in their application, he was willing to hear them.
The report was laid on the table.
Mr. JENKINSON made an ineffectual application for leave for the Committee on the Northern States Prison Investigation to sit during the session of the House.
On the motion of Mr. COLLINS, of Whitley, (by unanimous consent,) his bill [152] to change the terms of the Common Pleas Courts in the counties of Lagrange, Steuben, De Kalb, Noble and Whitley, was considered on the 2d reading, and ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. ANDERSON, (by consent,) introduced bill [152] to amend the 107th section of the amended school act of March 5, 1859, so as to regulate the choice of teachers: which passed to the second reading.
On motion by Mr. ORR, (by consent,) tlio bill [S. 74] to change the times of the Common Pleas in the 7th Judicial Circuit, in the counties of Hancock, Hamilton, Tipton, &c., was considered, and (under a dispensatton) passed the first and secoad readings,and was referred to a select committee, to be composed of one member from each county in the Circuit.
Mr. McLEAN asked and obtained leave to have the following spread on the Journal:
Mr. Speaker:
The undersigned, one of the members of the Committee of Thirteen, who submitted the minority Report of said committee to this House, desires to enter his dissent from so much of said minority report as reflects upon the ministers of the gospel. The undersigned would say that although the allusions contained in the said report reflecting upon the ministry may be lamentably true to a certain extent, yet he must regard the said charges as entirely too general, wholesale and sweeping in their character, in bad taste, foreign to the real object which should have been kept in view by the report, and not calculated to allay the bad feeling unfortunately existing among our people. The undersigned would say that the principal features and great body of the said minority Report meet his hearty and cordial approbation, but he cannot endorse the offensive allegations above referred to. The undersigned regards it due to himself to state that the said minority Report was presented to him for his signature at his desk in the House only a few minutes before the hour for which it was made the special order, not affording him either time or opportunity to examine the same. The undersigned cannot concur in the said minority report, unless the said offensive charges are stricken from the same, and would recommend the House that the same should be stricken out.
WM. E. McLEAN
Mr. McLEAN. was probably due to himself to state that his name was affixed to the report before he had time to consider that part to which he now excepted.
The House now resumed the consideration of the reports of the Committee of Thirteen.
The SPEAKER stated that the order of yesterday to restrict debate applied only to the consideration of that part of the report which refers to the appointment of Commissioners to the Washington Convention.
Mr. FRASIER. He had listened to the speech of the gentleman from Floyd, more in. sorrow than in anger. Was sorry to hear such sentiments on this floor. But the sentiments uttered by that gentleman were as harmless as the cooing of a dove, when compared with the treason, rank and foul, which breathes throughout this minority report. He was glad his honorable friend from Vigo had dissented from it. He was glad to learn under what circumstances his name was attached to that report. But he was sorry to see attached to that report the name of a gentleman, who a few days back had introduced a resolution to the effect, that the State of Indiana was ready to back up the General Government in any attempt to put down the treason of the south. When he page: 153[View Page 153]chargeded that the spirit of treason breathes through that report, he spoke what he knew. "When the language of the Declaration of Independence comes to be prostituted to the purpose of justifying a band of rebels and traitors, marshalled under their rattle snake ensign, it did seem to him that it must cause the very bones of our patriot fathers to rattle in their graves. What does this report say? It assumes that these men are justly, and rightfully and properly defending their rights, and tins minority of the committee more than intimate where they will be found in the conflict. Would it be in defence of the Constitution? No sir; they tell us that they are ready to shoulder the musket and assist rebellion and treason-assist to overthrow the best Government ever constituted on earth. And yet they denounce us as traitors to the country, because we see lit to stand up and boldly advocate our principles for the defense of the constitution and the enforcement of the laws, which are saered and next in our hearts, to the book of God. But this portion of the committee had invited investigation into the causes which have brought about this state of affairs He agreed with Mr. Stotsenberg that it was useless to inquire after the causes which have brought the country to the present crisis. But gentlemen have invited investigation, and we have heard it charged not only on the streets, but on the authority of leading newspapers repeating the sentiment of the late Goverdor Hammond, that it has been the work of demagogues and hypocritical ministers of the gospel.
He proceeded at length to examine the record of the past ten or twelve years, and to throw back the charge of responsibility for the Federal difficulties upon the Democratic party, and to convict them of various inconsistencies on the slavery issue; closing with strictures on the plans of adjustment and remedy for national difficulties proposed by them.
He referred to the Convention of the Democratic party in. 1849, in this State. Leading members of it were the late Gov. Willard, Attorney General McDonald and their late candidate for Governor. No man raised his voice in that Convention against the doctrines set forth in its platform. There is nothing in it recognizing the State rights about which they talk so much at this time.
He then read the platform, condemning the introduction of slavery in the territories. He also referred to the Joint Resolutions in the General Assembly at the ensuing session. In Ohio, the Democratic party assumed bolder ground and determined to eradicate slavery. Yet this party by its press and by its speakers have represented to the South, that it was the object of the Republican party to destroy slavery in the States where it now exists. When a United States Senator was to be elected, at that time, it was deemed necessary to learn the opinions of the leading men of their party and receive pledges of hostility to the extension of slavery, even to its abolishment in the District of Columbia. These facts are well known to all. Yet some of these rnen, thus pledged, cannot now take part in the raising of the flag of the country, but make it an occasion of especial denunciation of the very opinions they then so zealously advocated. He then read the correspondence with Mr. Fitch, in which he pledges himself to hostility to slavery, where it had long been existing.
Was it constitutional, then, to prohibit slavery from the Territories? Was it not extraordinary that no one of its ablest men then discovered, what all of the party now see so clearly, the unconstutionality of prohibiting slavery from the Territories?
He challenged any one of them to show that the Republican party, in any particular, went beyond these Democratic pledges and opinions of 1849. He then showed that by the decisions of the United States Courts in the slave States themselves, slavery was declared not to exist beyond the States under whose authority it existed. All these decisions, made during a long period of time, were in direct conflict with the principles of the Dred Scott decision.
The change of the party, so complete in its inconsistency, has been caused by its attempt to uphold a rotten and corrupt dynasty, which the people had so justly hurled from power. Even in last June the Democratic party refused to assume the position that is now taken in defense of those who are banded together in avowed rebellion against their Government. They did this, well knowing that the North would utterly repudiate the then demands of the South.
Some of the party admit that the Government has a right to enforce its laws by arms, but they should read the minority report, which now takes the position that a State has a right to secede whenever it chooses. He never would consent to the adoption of the Crittenden amendment, because it takes the opposite of that position assumed by the great Henry Clay, when he declared that no earthly power could force him to extend slavery where it does not now exist. Yet now, in open rebellion against the Government, in violation of the Constitution itself, in resistance to the law, with arms in their hands which they have stolen, there is a portion of the country demanding what Henry Clay thus declared no human power could force him to consent to. And now, in this minority report, men thus in open rebellion are sustained, and the State is menaced with the threat, that if any attempt is made to enforce the laws and defend the General Government, a power will arise in our own State, to withstand, by force of arms, such attempt.
He then referred to the evils of slavery as evidenced by the progress of the slave and free States, and maintained that the result was occasioned by this institution, and in the nature of things no prosperity could be expected where labor was based on the denial of the rights that belonged to a man.
page: 154[View Page 154]Mr. HEFFREN here desired to know whether a negro was a man.
Mr. FRASIER. He would reply to that by asking: whether Mr. Heffren thought he was not a man?
Mr. HEFFREN said he was not.
Mr. FRASIER. He is a man, although not enjoying the political rights which we do; just as our wives and daughters are women, although they are denied the right to vote, and are subjected to other legal disabilities. The negro had a right, no matter what his position by local legislation, to the product of his labor. It is a right that belongs to every human being, and this right is recognized by our State Constitution, the production of a Convention largely Democratic.
He maintained that if the Democratic party had stood up in support of the principles it advocated in times past, the present difficulties never would have existed, but to hold on to their political ascendancy they renounced every one of their principles, descending so low in their subserviency as here to maintain that a negro is not a man, and that he had no lights as a human being that can distinguish him from property, and, hence, that rebellion is to be supported in its demands to take this property wherever it shall be their pleasure to take it.
As to our Constitution it shall be supported; its flag shall be defended; the liberty of which it is an emblem shall be maintained at all hazards, and if destruction comes in their defence, that defence shall be made to the last drop of our hearts blood.
Mr. PACKARD supposed he shared in the feeling of all the members on this floor when he said the subject under consideration could not be overestimated. It must be acknowledged that the present is a time of great danger and difficulty, and to one as young as himself in political life, it was almost dangerous to approach the subject. Scylla is on the one hand, and Charyhdis on the other. But the heart that falters in the hour of peril, the spirit that quails when danger and difficulty surrounds, is unworthy the name of freeman. Therefore, whether he erred or not, he had an earnest heart and purpose in the matter, and by the indulgence of the House, he would-five utterance to the sentiments he cherished. The history of our coutry for eighty-four years had been a proud one. Our penury had become opulence; our feebleness had become a mighty power; our commerce had become the hope of the world, and our feeble and restricted colonies had become an ocean-bound empire.
But in the midst of all this prosperity there have been those who have gone about all over our free land sowing the seeds of discord ; and the cloud which, at the first, was no larger than a man's hand-than that seen by the servant of Elijah on the mountain top-has grown fearfully large and lowering, ready to break over our country in all the fierce horrors of a revolution. As the physician who would treat skillfully a fearful disease, inquires first into the cause, so in order that we may be able to prescribe a proper and wholsesome remedy, we should first seek out and find the true source of our troubles. In discussin the source and origin of our troubles, it was not his purpose to advert to them at great length, nor to indulge incriminations and recriminations! He believed that the great fault, the great source of the error of the American people, if they are in error, had arisen from this fact: We talk of the secession of South Carolina, but he affirmed that this Union was virtually dissolved long before the State of South Carolina declared her ordinance of secession. Dissolved! How? Not by any civil, overt act of dissolution; by no means.
But what was this Union? It was a great political constitution which rests on the popular good will-on the mutual feeling of love and respect of the people of the United States, Its foundations rest where all liberal and Constitutional Governments must rest. There was but one other bond of strength for government, and that was slavish fear. Then if this Union rests on the mutual good will of the people of the States, he said, the Union was destroyed when that feeling was destroyed. Joshua R. Giddings never utteard a greater Republican truth than when he said there was no enmity between any two foreign nations greater than that between the people of the Northern and the people of the Southern States. But certainly gentlemen would not accuse the Democracy of the North with entertaining that hatred. No; but it was a fearful fact that for a long time past a rancorous hatred had sprung up in the bosom of the people of the North against the people of the South. This feeling had assumed a political character, and increasing in power and momentum, had rolled wave after wave of its power in a reckless crusade on the peculiar institution of the South, in utter disregard of their right of protection, as recognized under the Constitution and in the solemn edicts of Congress.
The North had fostered and strengthened a hostile feeling against the South, until it had become a rankling hatred, as shown by the laws passed by these Northern States. They have refused the poor boon of allowing the slaveholders to pass through their States with their slaves; their leader has declared that slavery and freedom can not exist together; yet the North is dependent on the South for its prosperity, and hence it refuses to grant the request of the South when it asks a peaceable division of the property that belongs to both, and the right to live in peace separately, He would not justify all the South had done; but who can expect a people in a revolution to observe the laws. The grievances of the South have become intolerable, and, as in our revolutionary struggle, they had a right to demand another government. Legally they could not revolutionize, but the Republicans, who have caused all the difficulties, have no reason to complain of their own acts. They have elected to the Presidency a man pledged to hostility against the rights of the South.
But now the Republicans have grown belligerent ; they desire to conquer the cotton States. If they do subdue them, how could page: 155[View Page 155]they govern them? If disunion, however disgraceful must come, let it come rather than civil war. Never would he consent to vote men or money, or arms, or consent to any measure that will lead to a conflict.
A great difficulty arises from our not remembering the nature of the difficulty. If it was limited to Charleston, we might properly coerce her and force her to obedience; but the true nature of it may be seen in the answer of the Tennessee Legislature to the New York resolutions. The dominant party in the North have crushed out all fraternal feeling by their Constant denunciations of slavery-their abolition lectures in every school house in the country. If they loved this country half as much as they do their party, they could bring peace and harmony back again. But they oppose the Crittenden propositions, because they deny the principles of concession it embodies. He referred to the positions assumed by Mr. Seward in the telegraphic reports of last night, as indicating that he was ready to abandon his party platform rather than bring civil war upon the country.
The apathy of the Republican party is one of the chief things one of the most clangerous that stands in the way of conciliation. They seem to depend wholly upon Abraham Lincoln, but unless the difficulties are settled before he takes his seat, he will preside over but a small portion of our Confederacy.
Why do they not allow the people to vote on the adoption of the Crittenden amendments? If they could speak, fifty thousand majority in this State would demand their adoption. It had been asserted that the people had decided these questions in the recent elections. He denied this. The principles of the Republicans never have been endorsed by the majority of the people, The Democrats had made the country ; he rejoiced that they have had the control of the State, and now if they could have their way, they would soon preserve it from the dangers that threaten its destruction. Instead of meeting the Democrats in their efforts to preserve it, they bring forward resolutions cunningly worded with terms of peace and fraternal feeling, but so limiting the powers of the Commissioners, as to prevent any action that could harmonize the country.
He asked what had been the policy of the country toward foreign nations. Did it settle conflicting claims by war? No! But by sending peace commissions, invoking every kindly feeling, as in the Canada boundary and the Oregon disputed line. Shall we not pursue the same course toward our own brethren?
Mr. CAMERON obtained the floor.
Mr. HENRICKS rose to a question of privilege. He held in his hand this morning's Cincinnati Commercial newspaper, containing an article which he desired to be read at the Clerk's table-in which there was reflection cast on the members of this body.
The article read was the New York Tribune's notice of the refusal in the Richmond (Va.) Theater to hear Miss Caroline Richings sing " The Star Spangled Banner," but when she sung the Southern Marseillaise, and trampled on the American Flag she received the most tumultuous applause; and the inquiry of the Commercial whether this was " the same Miss Richings who sang " The Star Spangled Banner" for the Indiana Legislature the other day, and received from that agust body a vote of thanks?
The Speaker laid before the House a communication from the Auditor of State responding to the resolution of the House, inquiring after $255,000 of the Common School Fund paid into the State Treasury and withheld from the schools, referred to in the last report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The Auditor says the practice has been to issue the Auditor's warrant in favor of the County Treasurer for the distributive share (of the School Fund) of each county, which warrant is placed to the credit of the county treasurer in settlement. Practically, only the excess has been paid into the Treasury. The reason of the accumulation of what is due to the Common School Fund is because the literal execution of the school law of 1855 is rendered impracticable by the failure of the county officers to report the collections in the time prescribed by law; and hence the Superintendent has been compelled to make an estimated distribution or none at all.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the reports of the Committee of Thirteen.
Mr. CAMERON took the floor, but gave way to-
Mr. PROSSER. Mr. Speaker, I have been one of those humble individuals that, if I have stood for anything, it has been for a calm and peaceable discussion of every question before this body, and but yesterday I was in favor of limiting speeches in this discussion to ten minutes, because I felt that no good could grow out of a protracted discussion. The propriety of this suggestion has become more apparent since, from the course that has been taken. There was a minority report from the Committee of Thirteen, of which I am a member ; and that report has been assailed by the majority on this floor in the most insulting and bitter terms. I was one who subscribed to that report. I put my name to it, believing it to be right. I have never, on this floor, or elsewhere, made the discussion of politics with my opponents, a personal matter. I have uniformly acted with the strictest courtesy to all political opponents. But now my sentiments and motives have been impugned. They have been assailed in most violent terms. The gentleman from Laporte yesterday evening commenced the attack, the gentleman from Jasper page: 156[View Page 156] followed it up, and to-day the gentleman from Kosciusko has capped the climax-until, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, forbearance on my part has ceased to be a virtue. If I have any principle, sir, it is to be true to myself and to my constituents; and when I am impeached as a traitor-when I am accused of being guilty of that for which, if proven, I should be strung up between heaven and earth-it is a matter of no small importance to me. I know that there are Republicans on this floor who do not countenance such remarks-who are not in favor of them, who discuss subjects upon their merits, without personal abuse, or pandering to passions and prejudices. And while there may have been some offensive remarks given out by the gentleman from Marshall, on this side, it was only by way of offset against what had been before heaped upon the minority. These gentlemen-three of them-have gone on to state that they are for war, that they are fighting men. The gentleman from Kosciusko was willing to spill the last drop of his blood in the conflict. They seem to be without fear. But I tell these gentlemen that it is beneath the dignity of the pot-house politician to indulge in such a line of remark. These questions can be better decided without going so far. I tell them, when they say l am a traitor, it is a base falsehood, and I cram it down their vile throats, and stand here to defend myself.
Mr. BUNDY and others called to order.
Mr. PROSSER. If I am not in order, why, in God's name, were not those men called to order when they denounced me as a traitor ? The call to order conies with a bad grace from them at this time, and again I hurl their denunciations back, and again cram the lie down their wide throats.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Brown will take his seat. The chair will not permit such language from any member of the House, and he begs to say that hereafter, when gentlemen take such advantage of the chair, he will see if there is not some way to protect both the chair and the House.
Mr. CAMERON thought there had been enough of this bad blood. Gentlemen should not stir up the fires of the volcano. He intended to discuss this question, not as it relates to men, but in view of the imminence of the peril that overhangs the country. We have been told here that the time is past for indulgence in "glittering generalities" that we must look the fact in the face ; that the Union is already begun to be dissolved; that in our political heavens one sun after another was fading out-ready to vanish, and leave only dark spots in their places. He proposed more particularly, to consider the remarks of his friend from Marshall [Mr. Packard.] That gentleman had said this difficulty of secession and dissolution is not the effect of the election of Mr. Lincoln, but that the cause of it existed long ago, when the people lost their devotion to the common country.
The gentleman right. So far back as the day when this government was formed, there was engendered by the dreamers of South Carolina an which never loved the Union which itself from time to time, and in Jackson's d broke forth in almost open rebellion.
The gentleman from Marshall referred to the causes which gave rise to the present unfortunate condition of the country. He attributed them to the discussion of slavery. He was sustained by those who were the leaders in this secession movement. He would read their declarations, and then it could be seen what the causes were.
In the convention of South Carolina, which passed the ordinance of secession, the following declarations were made by delegates :
"Mr. Inglis. Mr. President : If there is any gentleman present who wishes to debate this matter, of course this body will hear him ; but as to delay for the purpose of discussion, I for one am opposed to it. As my friend (Mr. Parker) has said, most of us have had this matter under consideration for the last twenty years, and I presume we have by this time arrived at a decision upon the subject,"
"Mr. Keitt-Sir, we are performing a great act, which involves not only the stirring present, but embraces the whole great future of ages to come. I have been engaged in this movement ever since I entered into political life"
"Mr. Rhett-The secession of South Carolina is not an event of a day. Is not anything produced by Mr. Lincoln's election, or by the non-execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. It is a matter which has been gathering head for thirty years."
Here it is seen that secession has not been caused by any recent political events. It has not been produced by the election of Mr. Lincoln. So declares the greatest leader in this secession movement. But for the last twenty years it has been agitated, and to present the consummation of the schemes of disunion, everything has been yielded- to the Southern disunionists for the last twenty years.
And now we are asked to make more concessions-to yield up every political principle that was decided by the election of Mr. Lincoln. If we do not comply with these demands the country is to be destroyed and the Union dissolved. To resist a dissolution of the government by the enforcement of the laws is denounced as unjustifiable coercion, and pictures are drawn of the calamities which must follow civil war. No one could more regret this than he, but if these are to be the results of enforcing obedience, he would endure them all. The rights of labor are to be maintained. The Republicans are made responsible for opinions held by the old Whig party, but he would defend them, although in past times he had been a Democrat. That party had stood by Jackson when the peace of the country was menaced and the Union threatened with destruction, Eminent men, as Scott and Taylor, of that party, were seen in prominent positions in the Mexican war.
We are told that the Union is dissolved. It is not so ; thirty-four stars are yet seen on our flag. It now represents Kansas, and South Carolina is still there. It has been admitted page: 157[View Page 157]that Charleston should be coerced, if the secession movement was confined to it; but what difference is there in the offense of a city or State? If it would be right to subdue the one-coercion, is it not right in the other, also?
But Mr. Packard charges that the Republican party meets the present crisis with apathy. This is not so; it acts coolly-calmly. Did Major Anderson act with apathy when he refrained from firing on the forts? or have we acted with apathy when we forbore to send boats against the battery at Vicksburg ?
The Crittenden propositions are nothing more than a slave code for the Territories, and whenever it is tried by the vote of the people,it will be found that they will again reject it, for it embodies the Breckinridge platform of the last canvass.
But the Republican party is charged with the acts of John Brown. That man was a dis-unionist, like those of the South-as Wendell Phillips and Lloyd Garrison are.
He then dwelt upon the benefits that the South had under the Constitution. They had those peculiar benefits, on account of which Wendell Phillips denounces it as a covenant, with hell, and seeks to destroy it. Here we see both these extremes resolved upon the destruction of the Constitution, because it is not as extreme as themselves.
The Republican party stands on the platform that the Union must and shall be preserved, and it will use all means necessary to preserve it. He declared his readiness to do all that he could to avoid a civil war, but when it was demanded of'him to make the country a slave country, lie would not consent.
Mr. BUNDY promised to be brief in his remarks, for he knew there were many members here who desired to be heard. He had heard the appeals of gentlemen for the preservation of the Union with great pleasure. He yielded to no man in the intensity of his desire to maintain this Union of these States. He would go any reasonable length for pacification, but he would never submit to yield to demands that required him to give up everything. He could not give up the principles on which the Government was founded. No objection had been made to the majority report except that it did not go far enough.
The Crittenden amendment was the only remedy proposed for healing the disease of the body politic. What is the Crittenden amendment? As has been truly said by Mr. Cameron, it is the Breckinridge platform with a slave code added. It is to apply not only to all the Territories now owned by the United States, but to cover all Mexico, when it may gradually become a part of the country. Squatter sovereignty was no more. That great party was already among the things that were. For one he could never accept this remedy. We are told it is a compromise. But how ? Slavery cannot go north of 36 30, but the God-of nature made ail this free territory. What is given up to the North? What does the South yield up? Nothing at all. They do not guarantee safety to our people when in their States on business. Is a proposition of this kind a compromise ? They are to have all the territory that may hereafter be acquired It is all to be given up to slavery. The compromise was all on one side-that the South shall have all the Territory they want, and we all the disadvantages. The people of the North never could make such a compromise.
But we are denounced because the General Assembly will not consent to submit this compromise to the people. The party that has been twice beaten before the people now asks for a new trial. There is a provision in our law which admits ot but two trials in the same matter. There is no justice in the demand. As the Crittenden amendments are the embodiment of the Breckinridge creed, and as it received but twelve thousand votes in this State, what right has a party so signally defeated to have the new trial they ask?
The language of the Minority report was objectionable, and he must be pardoned if he referred to it. The denunciations against the Ministry and the Bible reminds us of the attempt made to destroy both these, in a revolution not a hundred years ago. The consequences of that attempt were such as will make them never to be forgotten.
But another objectionable portion is where it declares that the attempt to enforce the laws will meet with resistance in this State. It is an extraordinary doctrine, one not ever heard of until lately, that a State may secede; yet the Government has no power to execute its laws. In 1833 this was not the doctrine then acted upon. It brings us back to the old Articles of Confederation, when the Government had no power to execute its own laws. What is the result of such a declaration as the minority report contains, but that those who make it will prevent the enforcement of the laws. If they do this, what else is it but giving assistance to the secessionists-to aid them to defy the laws and break up the Union. Is such a course consistent with the duty of patriots ? Is it not rather intended to overthrow the Government, and what else can this be but treason ?
The report declares that the negro is of an inferior race; but if true, does his inferiority make him the creature of slavery ? Yet, unless such a doctrine is enforced, we are threatened, and the country is to be involved in ruin.
He argued further in defense of the principles of the Republican party, and by way of review and criticism of the matter of the minority report. When he had concluded
Mr. HEFFREN spoke at length on the other side. A report of his speech, too long for these pages, is reserved for revision.
Mr. Veatch has the floor for to-morrow. page: 158[View Page 158] Mr. Underwood obtained leave of absence two days.
The SPEAKER. There had been a disposition manifested to charge the Chair with allowing remarks out of order on one side of the House, and not on the other. No such thing was intended. If, as he had been informed, remarks had been indulged in his temporary absence, requiring the restraints of the Chair, he desired to say now, that under no circumstances will he permit any gentleman to proceed when he reflects on motives and character. He regretted that remarks were made this afternoon which were decidedly out of order. The gentlemen on his right now could not complain that they were not at least equal to those on his left.
Mr. FRASIER called the House to witness that he had made no personal allusions in this debate; but he claimed his right to speak of measures as became a representative of a free people.
The House then adjourned.
SATURDAY, February 2, 1861.Hon. David STUDABAKER, the Senator from Adams, Wells and Jay, appeared in his seat for the first time this session, having been detained on account of sickness in his family.
The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Doorkeeper, stating that he had applied for money to buy postage stamps, in accordance with a resolution adopted yesterday, but had found the treasury empty, and is therefore unable to perform his duty. Also, a communication from the Treasurer of State, (in answer to a resolution of the Senate,) stating that the $104,052 37 suspended debt did not arise during his term of office; and that the $160,000 was placed in the hands of Agent of State, in pursuance of law, to meet the interest due January 1, 1881.
By Mr. LOMAX: Resolutions adopted by a meeting in Orange county a few days since.
By Mr. SLACK: Preamble and resolutions, adopted by citizens of Whitley county, without distinction of party.
Were referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
By Mr. WHITE, in the absence of Mr. Wagner, a petition from citizens of Warren county, asking the repeal of the new county acts of '57 and '59; referred to the Special Committee on that subject.
By Mr. CONNER: Corporation-returning Mr. Ferguson's bill [S. 39-see p. 46] recommending passage.
By Mr. JOHNSON: Agriculture-returning petitions asking for repeal of the law requiring assessors to make out statistical lists for information, and reporting a bill in accordance therewith, [S. 99,] to repeal section 73 of the valuation and assessment act, approved June 21, 1852; which was passed the first without objection.
By Mr. SHOEMAKER: County and Township Business-returning his bill [S. 26-described on page 30 of these Reports] recommending passage.
By Mr. CONLEY: Select Commitee returning numerous petitions, asking repeal of the new county acts of '57 and '59, recommending that they lay on table, as there is a bill now on its third reading in the Senate contemplating the object of the petitions.
By Mr. LINE: Select Committee returning joint resolution [S. 5] proposing amendments to the Constitution, so that the Legisiature may more effectually guard against fraudulent 6 voting; recommending passage.
The joint resolution being read-
Mr. MARCH said: This amendment to th Constitution is only to meet the objection as to the power of the Legislature to pass laws as to the qualification of voters, about which there is a difference of opinion. I believe the Legislature now has the power to pass laws fixing the time of residence for the voter in county, ward or township; but there are Senators here, and legal gentlemen all over the State who differ with me. I am willing to vote for both propositions, because the decision of the Supreme Court would be obtained within two years, and it will then substitute the final action of the amendments to the Constitution should that decision be favorable; while on the other hand should they decide that the Legislature has not the power, we have it so that in three years it can be put in force. It is well known it requires the action of two sessions of the Legislature, and then must be submitted to a vote of the people. There is ample time to guard against any want of foresight in the provision.
Mr. LINE. There is a difference of opinion among even our best lawyers as to whether the Legislature has power to set any length of term for the qualification of a voter. This being an unsettled point and the fact that charges of fraud upon the ballot box are bantered freely by parties, is of itself a sufficient reason why these amendments should be incorporated in the Constitution. Hence I shall support the proposition.
The joint resolution was adopted by yeas 38, nays 2.
By Mr. MARCH: Select committee returning a joint resolution, [S. 6] proposing an amendment to article 8 of the Constitution, enabling towns and cities to raise money by taxation for common school purposes ; which was subsequently passed by yeas 31, nays 4. Also, reporting a joint resolution, [S. 12] proposing an amendment to section 23, article 4 of the Constitution in relation to the uniform operation of laws throughout the State.
page: 159[View Page 159]Mr. MARCH. The original proposition was an amendment to the 8th article and it simply adds a clause giving the Legislature power to confer upon incorporated towns and cities the right to raise a tax for the support of common schools, and the object of that amendment meet the decision of the Supreme Court, when they decided there could be no except the State tax. They also raised that a law of that kind would to objection, that it would not be operation. The operation of the clause is simply this, to give incorporated towns and cities under rules provided by the Legislature, the power to raise money in addition to what they receive from the State for the support of common schools. It is not intended to interfere with the present system of common schools in any way or form, but to towns, and townships if they see proper to make additions to this fund in order to carry out the system more fully.
Mr. SHOULDERS. I pledged myself to my people that I would not vote for any amendment to the Constitution whatever, from the fact I considered party excitement so high at this time, that it would be inexpedient to meddle with the Constitution and for that reason I shall vote against the proposition.
The joint resolution was adopted by yeas 35, nays 4.
The Committee reports recited above vere severally concurred in.
The following bills were introduced, and severally passed the first reading, without objection :
By Mr. TARKINGTON : [100] To create the 14th Judicial Circuit. Rules suspended, read the second time by title only, and referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
By Mr. CONNER: [101] To amend section 168 of the assessment act, so that the County Auditor's deed for land sold for tax shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein recited, and no more.
By Mr. WOLFE : [102] To amend section 21 and 22 of the misdemeanor act, approved June 14, 1852 ; so as to define adultery, fornication and other public indecencies.
By Mr. MILLER : [103] To enable minors whose land has been sold on application by guardian during minority, to prosecute an appeal from the order confirming the sale any time within three years after arriving at age.
By Mr. SLACK : [104] To amend an act entitled an act concerning real property, approved May 6, '52, and March 2, '59, so as to authorize mulattoes and Indians to convey.
By Mr. MURRAY: [105] To provide for the location, vacation and change of highways, &c., and repeal sections 15 to 26 inclusive of the act to vacate or change highways ; approved June 17, '52.
By Mr. TEEGARDEN: [106] To provide for settlement, and compromise by persons or joint partners with creditors.
By Mr. HAMILTON: [107] For the relief of tie heirs of Michael O'Brien, deceased.
[A message from the Governor announced his approval of Mr. Conner's bill [S. 97-introduced day before yesterday) changing the time of holding Common Pleas Courts in Wabash county.]
By Mr. CULVER: [108] To allow county commissioners to organize turnpike companies in certain cases.
By Mr. FERGUSON : [109] To amend sec. 1 of an act defining who are persons of unsound mind, &c.; approved May 29, 1852.
By Mr. MURRAY : [110] To provide for the appointment of notaries public, defining their powers, &c., and repealing all acts now in force.
By Mr. MARCH: [111] To amend section 23 of an act for the relief of the Indiana University; approved March 2, '59.
[Mr. Ray was added to the Military Committee.]
On motion by Mr. ODELL, the rules were suspended-yeas 24, nays 1-and his bill [S. 89] to establish probate courts, was read the second time by title only, and referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
Mr. JONES offered a resolution, which was adopted, instructing the Judiciary Committee to report whether by the Constitution and laws individuals who have advanced monies for the support of friends in the Insane Hospital, can legally demand that the money shall be refunded.
[Mr. Jones was added to the Committee on Banks.]
And then-
On motion, the Senate adjourned.
SATURDAY, February 2, 1861.PETITIONS.
Mr. NEBEKER presented a petition for the repeal of the acts for the formation of New Counties.
Mr. WELLS presented a petition for such change of the law that the people of each district in the county shall elect their own commissioners; they were referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
Mr. COLLINS, of Adams, presented the petition of Snow and others, citizens of Adams county, for remuneration to Wm. Vance for expenses incurred by him in arresting a fugitive from justice; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. JENKINSON presented a petition for legislation against sheep - killing dogs; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. BUNDY, from the Committee on Judiciary, returned the petition of Joshua Holland page: 160[View Page 160] and others, for a law authorizing parties to contract for a rate of interest on the loan or forbearance of money not exceeding ten per cent, and reported a bill [163] to amend the first section of the act concerning interest on money, approved May 27, 1852; which was passed to the second reading:
Mr. EDSON, on the part of the minority of the Judiciary Committee, asked and obtained leave to present a minority report; which subsequently he did, and without reading, it was ordered to be spread on the Journal.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I delivered before this body what were my deliberate views of the state of the country. I said nothing in that speech that I would take back-not a sentence-not a syllable of a sentence. That speech, or the substance of it, will be published. I am willing-my record shall go out-I am willing to abide by what I have said. After I had closed my remarks (it seems they had raised something of a flutter on the other side)quite a number of Republicans came round me here asking me various questions. I replied, that in my speech I had expressed my sentiments, and if they could find anything wrong in that, they could take it and make the most it. I made no other answer to the questions propounded to me. I only said I regard coercion as civil war, and compromise and conciliation as the only means of obviating the ruin of this divided country; and that so long as I had power to raise my arm, I would stand up and oppose any and every effort for coercion, because I believed it would be destructive of our entire country. Now, sir, I see, in the Indianapolis Journal of this morning, a squib fired at me, purporting to come from a member of this House. I will send it up to be read.
The clerk read the following:
February 1,1860.ED. JOURNAL-To-day, after the Hon. Mr. Packard had finished his speech in the House of Representatives, I went to him and propounded the following question: " If war will and must come, between the North and the South, on which side will you be found?" After some hesitation he answered: "On the side of the South!" The answer was given in the presence of several gentlemen.
[-The above statement comes to us authorized by the name of a good and true man, and a member of the House. It is unquestionably true, and shows that we said no more than facts will prove when we declared that " all the traitors were not in the Gulf States." Such a man has no business in the Legislature of a State he avows his readiness to oppose by force.-Ed. Journal.]
Mr. PACKARD. I would just say, Mr.Speaker-
The SPEAKER. The Chair is unable to see exactly a question of privilege in that.
Mr. PACKARD. It is an attack on me.
Mr. FEAGLER. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, I am the man responsible for ' that.
Mr. PACKARD. I say I never answered a question-none that were asked me. And I now denounce the author of that statement as a black-hearted liar, infamous scoundrel a coward.
The SPEAKER appealed to the House to preserve order.
Mr. FEAGLER (amidst various calls to order.) That matter I can call testimony to prove, sir. I went round and put the question to you, and you stated, after hesitation, If war come you would be on the side of the South.
The SPEAKER. The House will come to order!
Mr. FEAGLER. I hurl the lie back, and I say to the gentleman-
The SPEAKER. Gentlemen, the Chair expects the House to preserve order. If this is to be made an arena for the settlement of private quarrels and resentments of member against member, the sooner we go home the better. I appeal to the House, and I hope the House will manifest a sufficient sense of itg dignity to censure members guilty of such violation of the rules. Since the announcement of yesterday, members coming in and indulging in such gross contempt of the House, should be punished by the House.
Mr. EDSON. When a member is grossly misrepresented and insulted in a newspaper has he not a right to take notice of it in his place ?
The SPEAKER. The proper course is to go to the editor, demand the author, and settle all private quarrels outside of the House.
Mr. BUNDY (by unanimous consent) submitted a preamble and resolution, which was adopted, viz :
WHEREAS, by the Constitution of the State of Indiana, it is declared that any person who shall give or accept a challenge to fight a duel shall be ineligible to any office of honor or trust; and whereas, the practice of duelling is a barbarism, and abhorrent to the moral sense of the age; therefore-
Resolved, That any member of this House who shall give or accept a challenge to fight a duel ought to be expelled therefrom.
Mr. WOODHULL desired to understand the point of privilege decided-
The SPEAKER. Anything occurring within the bar is a question of privilege. Anything transpiring without the bar, like that submitted by the gentleman from Marshall and Starke, is as much beyond the jurisdiction of the Chair as though it was in the streets of the city.
Mr. VEATCH, sorry for this interruption, stated that during the short time he had had the honor to hold a seat here, he had found no occasion to entertain or express ill-feeling toward his fellow members; and he desired especially, in what he had now to say, to avoid all personalities and all offensive language toward anyone; at the sometime he intended to speak with all that freedom which the case demanded. But if, in the ardor of debate, he should happen to be led into any transgression of the rules of the House, he hoped he would be promptly called to order.
page: 161[View Page 161]He had listened yesterday with some attention to the speech of the gentleman from Washington and Harrison, and he must be permitted to say of it, (since variety is the spice of life,) that that speech contains a large amount of that spice. If, during the delivery speech, any person had come into the Hall to listen without knowing the subject of it, he would, from time to time, have been compelled to change his mind as to what was the gentleman's object. At one time he might have thought we were in midsummer-in the heat of the month of July-and that a Fourth of July celebration was going on in the House, instead of a little discussion on two joint re-solutions of the House of Representatives. Then in a few moments more, he might have bought the gentleman a minister of the gospel-a magnate of the church-whose whole life had been given to piety and holiness; he might have imagined him enthroned in the hair of the Holy See, administering his rebukes and warnings to the faithful, and teaching them, by infallible rules, how to read the sacred scriptures and seek their souls' salvation. Then, if he had listened further, he might have regarded him as an intrepid military leader, urging on his followers to deeds of violence and blood, threatening in their results to merge in wreck and ruin the proudest and best government ever constituted by man. Such were some of the varied characteristics of the speech of the gentleman from Washington.
He did not propose now to offer any such entertainment to the House. He proposed, as aa humble member of the Republican party, to submit what he understood to be the great principles of that party, and to offer some reasons, briefly, why they ought to be sustained by the lovers of our country.
He was inclined to look on the favorable side of men and things. He hated misrepresentation, and the man that loves it and practices it. This he applied to that class of partizans who would distort the views of others for strife. Now Republican speakers could not go South, nor their papers and speeches. But day after day distortions and misrepresentations of them were borne by every mail to the South. But every Republican knew he was not an enemy of the South, and the whole country ought to know and acknowledge this fact.
The right of the majority to rule was a fundamental principle with the Republican party. They asserted no new doctrine, but the old principles of the fathers. In 1857 they resisted the spread of slavery. They were defeated. Republicans propose no other correction of a public grievance than a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box. In 1880 they went before the people on the same issue-the retraining of slavery by constitutional enactments of Congress. They had a right to present that issue : and they had found a sanction of that principle by 1,800,000 voters. In opposition to this doctrine, there was one that Congress had a right to establish, and the people no right to prohibit, slavery in the territories-sanctioned by about 700,000 voters. A few days after the November election, this minority rebelled, and, like the gentleman from Marshall yesterday, with all the complacency of a prophet, they add: I told you so: I told you, you would bring ruin upon the country. Compromise, they say. We have no principles; why should you be tenacious now ?
But they claim the right of revolution. No man respects that right more than I do. But should it obtain in the case of a government formed by the people themselves ? Why was it that the rule of Democracy had been so bad, that they were now so earnest, for the destruction of their own work, that they were justified in taking up arms against it? Was that worth thanking God for, after the example of the gentlemen from Marshall and Starke? But they come back with the everlasting, whining cry, Why don't you do something? Millions of the public property had been seized by rebels; State after State had seceded ; and yet we are told that 100,000 men in Indiana will present a rampart of their bodies against any attempt of the Administration to enforce the laws and protect the public property. But some gentlemen, like the gentleman from Vigo, had got already a little too much record on this.
He was opposed to coercion ; but in favor of the proper, due enforcement of every law of the land. He would not think of subduing the seceding States-would not compel them to have their mails carried by the General Government-would not compel them to send representatives to Congress. But we will collect the revenue, and if mobs resist, they must be punished. He would not bandy the word traitor. But when men here join a Southern army to prevent the execution of the laws, that act was treason. He read the constitutional definition of treason, and decisions of the Courts under it. The gentleman from Washington had said yesterday, in reply to Mr. Nebeker,that, in case the President should go south with the army to enforce the laws, he would leave the home of his childhood, the hearth-stone of his father's house, and as De Kalb, Lafayette and Kosciusko left their homes and country, he would resign his commission, and go and become a private in the armies of the South, sooner than become a commander in chief of a Northern army. A combined force to resist the execution of the laws was treason-joining, giving aid and comfort to the enemy,was treason ; and a man arrested under such circumstances, could not be adjudged by any jury otherwise than as guilty of treason against his country. He trusted he was not violating any rule of courtesy when he made this statement.
page: 162[View Page 162]He replied to Mr. Packard, ringing the changes pleasantly on his "thank God, Democracy has ruled the State of Indiana"-combining therewith the Republican exceptions to the management of the finances of the State.
He then reviewed the minority report, with copious strictures, especially on that clause in the resolution which charges responsibility for our national difficulties upon Ministers of the Gospel-religious vagabonds; and proceeded to reply more specifically to the speech of Mr. Heffren.
He replied also to the speech, and showed the impracticability of the amendment of Mr. Stotsenberg-speaking at length on the whole premises in defence of Republicanism.
Mr. JENKINSON had looked up to the gentleman from Spencer, as a neophite looks to his teacher, and was disappointed because he had failed to propose a remedy for our National difficulties, and contented himself with captious criticisms and strictures on the speeches of Democratic members on this floor. He sustained the minority report. It denounced not ministers of the gospel, but pretended ministers. He would not go South to fight-would not fight his brethren-would not have Indianians to go. If they attacked, he would defend. He would have resented the attack on the Star of the West. He would protect and defend the public property and the forts wherever the flag of our country waves. The position of the Democratic party on this question of coercion, was that of Pitt, and Barry, and Burke, on the same question before the war of the revolution, in the British Parliament ; and the present position of the Southern Cotton States was not without a close analogy to that of our fathers of the revolution. The Republican heart was right, but its head was wrong. They should take a lesson from history against the disastrous results of civil war. He objected to the Republican policy of building a wall of fire around the slave States. Slavery must have scope and expand.
Mr. FRASIER. If the South refuse your terms of compromise, would you coerce them ?
Mr. JENKINSON. If old Virginia were met in the proper spirit, she would not go out; and the cotton States could not stand alone. He would throw a cordon of armed vessels around the Southern coasts and collect the revenue. He would give the slave States an equal chance in the Territories, as a policy to get rid of the institution. Give it scope and it would retire toward the tropics, and leave all the original States free. Such was the policy of the Crittenden amendments. It would repel slavery, not attract it, nor advance its interests in this Union. And this was all the people of the South wanted-simply a guarantee that they may take their slaves and be protected with them in their share of the common Territories. And the Republican platform was the thing in the way of this: hence civil war. He referred to the error of taking the powerof appointing commissioners to the Washington convention out of the hands of the Legislature, and insisted that he could pick 200 Republicans in the State of Indiana, better men for the place than those the Governor has appointed. They were men of extreme and uncompromising views. He knew them all but Slaughter, and this was the extent of his objection to them. He charged that the whole political course of the Republican party was tending directly to the disruption and disunion originally desired professed by the Abolitionists.
He spoke at length, closing with an argument for submitting the Crittenden amendments to the people of Indiana on the 22d Of February, and the expression of his assurance that they would be sustained by a majority Of 50,000 voters.
Being interrupted, he answered that he regarded a negro as a man-an inferior of the white man. He recognized popular sovereignty as the true doctrine (all the Constitution did was to recognize slaves as property;) but he was willing to yield popular sovereignty south of the line for the sake of peace.
When he concluded, Mr. CASON took the floor.
And then, at 11:35 o'clock, the House adjourned till Monday 2 o'clock p. m.
MONDAY, February 4,1861.The Senate was not in session before noon.
Mr. MURRAY offered a resolution, which was adopted by consent, requiring the Committee on Printing to inquire into and report as to the expediency of letting out the public printing to the lowest bidder; what amount of money has been expended last year on account of the public printing; whether it has been done under the prices of the law of '59; to examine and report whether justice and economy demand a reduction of said prices; report a bill making the printer furnish paper; and a bill separating the binding from the printing.
Mr. TURNER presented a communication from Major Dunn-being a contract for the labor of a certain number of convicts in the Northern State Prison ; which was read and referred to the Penitentiary Committee.
Mr. O'BRIEN, which was referred, without reading, to a Select Committee, consisting of Senators O'Brien, Hall, Robinson and Cravens.
Mr. WILSON, praying the repeal of the new county acts of '57 and '59.
Mr. BLAIR, not objecting to the repeal of those laws, but praying for a proviso saving all pending proceedings.
Which were referred to the Special Committee on that subject.