der right over for the murder the criminal had committed. Surely, a murder could not be committed more coolly than it was by law. A court investigated the case of a man charged with committing murder, and counsel were emthat he might be punished if guilty; and this, in his estimation, was as cool and deliberate attempt to murder the accused, as he himself could ever have been guilty of in the murder of anybody else. YEAS.-Messrs. Allen, Badger, Ballingall, Bascom, Borden, Bright, Carter, Chapman, Clark of Hamilton, Conduit, Davis of Madison, Davis of Parke, Dunn of Jefferson, Edmonston, Elliott, Gregg, Hall, Hamilton, Harbolt, Hawkins, Hitt, Kelso, Kinley, March, May, Mc-ployed to seek out evidence to convict him, so Clelland, Miller of Fulton, Milligan, Milroy, Morgan, Murray, Nofsinger, Owen, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Crawford, Prather, Robinson, Sims, Smiley, Snook, Steele, Stevenson, Tague, Watts, and Work-45. NAYS. - Messrs. Anthony, Beach, Beard, The gentleman from Allen (Mr. Borden) had Bicknell, Biddle, Blythe, Bourne, Bracken, stated that a burglar, if the law provided simBryant, Butler, Carr, Chandler, Clark of Tip-ply for incarceration in the penitentiary for pecanoe, Clements, Coats, Cole, Cookerly, Dick, murder, would thereby be encouraged to kill an Dobson, Dunn of Perry, Duzan, Farrow, individual who might catch him in the act of Fisher, Foster, Frisbie, Garvin, Gibson, Gor-committing burglary, because he would thus don, Grahain of Miami, Haddon, Helm, Helmer, get rid of the evidence that would send him to Hendricks, Hogin, Hovey, Howe, Huff, John- the penitentiary. Now, he thought that the son, Kent, Kilgore, Lockhart, Maguire, Mather, argument was on the other side, and that, in Mathis, McLean, Miller of Clinton, Miller of seven cases out of ten, if a man could enter a Gibson, Mooney, Nave, Newman, Niles, Rari-house for the purpose of robbing it, he would den, Read of Clark, Read of Monroe, Ristine, Schoonover, Sherrod, Shoup, Spann, Tannehill, Thomas, Thornton, Trimbly, Wheeler, Wiley, Wolfe, Wunderlich, Zenor, and Mr. President-69. PUNISHMENT FOR OFFENSES. The ninth section, declaring that excessive bail and fines shall not be permitted, and cruel and unnessary punishments inflicted, was taken up and read a third time. Mr. MILROY moved to re-commit the section, with instructions to add: "the penalty of death shall in no case be inflicted." not destroy life if he were caught in the act, for fear of going to the penitentiary for life, as a murderer would be tracked much more closely than a mere thief; and there would be some difference between a chance between two and fourteen years in the one case, and imprisonment for life in the other. He saw no good reason whatever for destroying life for any offense whatever. The gentleman from Allen (Mr. Borden) wished men hanged for cool and deliberate murder. This, he said, would, unfortunately for him, destroy the force of all his argument upon the case of burglary, which he has just put. If a man enter a house with Mr. BORDEN moved to amend: "except it be for cool, deliberate, and premeditated mur-burglarious intent, and, upon being suprised, der." should, to effect his escape, kill his pursuers, this would be neither cool or deliberate; it would be a hasty killing upon the spur of an own rule of cool and deliberate murder. They had, he said, a penitentiary, and they might apportion a dozen different wards, in proportion to the magnitude of the offense. They might prepare a dungeon for the murderer, from whence the light of day should be forever ex-cluded. Mr. B. said that he did not believe that a man should be put to death for political offenses. A man ought only to be executed, in his opin-emergency, and would not come within his ion, where he deliberately formed the design to commit murder. If a man was only to be sentenced to the penitentiary for life when he committed a murder, a burglar, for instance, would commit murder, in order to remove the evidence against him, if he should be disturbed in his depredations. He would reason to himself that, if caught, he would have to go the penitentiary, and if he killed the individual who might discover him in the act of burglary, there would be no evidence against him; and if the deed were found out, he would only have to go to jail. He was in favor, then, of inflicting the penalty of death upon all who coolly and pre-murderer became an individual of note; thousmeditatively committed murder, but for no other offense. Some gentlemen took the ground that, public executions would tend to awe the populace and repress murders; but he was satisfied that facts proved the contrary, and that executions tended more to encourage the crime of murder than to repress it. And why? Because the ands would come to witness his execution; and his crime and probable execution would be the Mr. KELSO remarked that he was opposed common talk of the day. Pride, then, would to capital punishment in any form. He consid- come to his aid, to enable him to walk to the ered that, when, by the operation of law, the scaffold apparently unawed, and to brave death, life of a human being, charged with murder, even with its icy hand upon his shoulder, and was taken in the form of an execution, it was he thus becomes the hero of the day. The best no more nor less than committing another mur-thing, he thought, that could be done in rela tion to this matter was, to wipe from the statate book of Indiana this barbarism of hanging, for which no reasonable excuse could be offered. MILITARY. Section thirteen, relating to the subordination of the military, and section fourteen, havMr. BORDEN said that, at the request of ing reference to the quartering of soldiers, were several friends, he would modify his amend-read a third time, and passed. ment as follows: "Except it be for the crime of cool and premeditated murder." Mr. HOWE said this was a question of very grave importance; and as he did not consider this the proper time for its discussion, he would move that the section and pending amendments be made the special order of the day for Friday week. The motion was agreed to. CONCEALED WEAPONS. The twelfth section, providing that no law should restrict the right of the people to bear arms, whether in defense of themselves or of the State, next came up in order. Mr. MILROY moved to re-commit the section, with instructions to strike out, and insert "No person shall be restricted in the right to carry visible arms." As the section now stood, Mr. M. thought that it gave a direct license to every desperado and rufian in the State to carry concealed weapons. He did not think, however, that this was the opinion of the Convention, or that they would restrict the Legislature from passing any law for carrying concealed weapons. A MEMBER. I hope the gentleman will modify his amendment, by adding after the word "arms" the words "or eyes." [Great laughter.] TITLES OF NOBILITY. Section fifteen, originally providing that "The Legislature shall not bestow any title of nobility, nor confer hereditary distinctions, nor grant extraordinary privileges," was then taken up for consideration. This section, as amended on yesterday by Mr. Read of Monroe, was ordered to be engrossed, as follows: "The Legislature shall not bestow any title of nobility, nor confer hereditary distinctions, nor grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges and immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens." Mr. NILES said that he understood there were strenuous objections to the passage of this section, and he therefore hoped the vote upon the engrossment would be re-considered, so that opportunity might be afforded for showing whether these objections were just or not. Mr. NAVE said that he had voted in the affirmative on the engrossment of this section The motion to re-commit was not agreed to. The language of the amendment adopted last Mr. NILES moved to re-commit the section, evening, "nor grant to any citizen or class of with instructions to strike out, and insert the citizens privileges and immunities which upon words, "That the people have a right to bear the same terms shall not equally belong to all arms for the defense of themselves and the citizens," he looked upon as of an extremely State," which was the precise language of the doubtful character, and which might have dif provision in the old Constitution upon the sub- ferent construcions placed upon it. It might ject. He, Mr. N., was desirous whenever the be so construed as that if a certain number of words of the old Constitution were unobject-individuals in Indiana should organize themionable, and had received judicial construction.{selves into a company to construct a railroad, a to retain them in the old form. He was opposed plank-road, or a ferry across a river, every citito the reported section from a fear it might pos- zen of Indiana would be entiled to enjoy the sibly be so construed as to deprive the Legisla- privileges of the road equally with those who ture of power to prohibi the carrying of concealed had constructed it, and every citizen might reweapons. The practice of carrying concealed ceive a portion of the profits arising therefrom. weapons was one of the most dastardly, odious, But he understood that the amendment went and murderous practices that was ever tolerated even further than this, and that it was a direct in the civilized world, and unquestionably there attack upon every corporation in the State, was not a gentleman on that floor who would private and public, upon State and individual not feel shocked at the idea that no such pro-banking. Many other reasons might be given. hibition could be passed. Mr. COOKERLY (in his seat). The section has never yet been so construed. The section was re-committed, with the instructions offered by the gentleman from Laporte. [Mr. N. was here compelled, owing to an affec tion, to cease his remarks.] The question was then taken upon the motion to re-consider, and the yeas and nays being demanded were ordered, and the Secretary reported the following result: Thomas, Thornton, Wallace, Watts, Wolfe, So the amendment was not laid on the table, Mr. BERRY moved to amend the amendment by adding "nor grant any extraordinary YEAS.-Messrs. Badger, Ballingall, Beard, Upon this motion a division was called for, and by ayes 54, noes 40, the amendment was adopted. The amendment as amended was adopted; and the section was ordered to be engrossed. TERMS OF OFFICE. The sixteenth section, providing that the Leg Mr. READ of Clark moved to except the NAYS.-Messrs. Allen, Anthony, Bascom,islature shall create no office, the term of which Berry, Bicknell, Biddle, Borden, Bright, Bryant, shall be longer than four years, was taken up Carr, Carter, Chandler, Chapman, Clark of and read a second time. Tippecanoe, Coats, Cookerly, Crumbacker, Dick, Dobson, Dunn of Perry, Duzan, Elliott, Gra-pilots at the falls of the Ohio river. ham of Miami, Howe, Johnson, Kelso, Kent, Kinley, Mather, Mathis, May, McClelland, McLean, Miller of Clinton, Miller of Fulton, Milroy, Mooney, Mowrer, Murray, Nofsinger, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Crawford, Read of Monroe, Ristine, Sherrod, Shoup, Sims, Smiley, Snook, Steele, Trimbly, Wiley, Work, and Wunderlich-54. So the vote upon the engrossment of the section was re-considered. Mr. HALL moved to amend, by striking out the entire section and inserting that "The Legislature shall not grant any title of nobility or hereditary distinctions." Mr. R. said he knew but little of these pilots, but he was satisfied from what he had heard in regard to them, that the longer they held their offices, the better they were qualified to perform their necessary duties. Some had held their situations for thirty and forty years; and he thought, as so much depended upon their skill and experience in the transportation of men and property, their term of office should be an exception. Five years would hardly enable a man to learn the hazardous da ies of a pilot. Mr. MILLIGAN moved to strike out the word in the 47th line, and insert the word "four." five," immediately before the word "years," Mr. DUNN of Jefferson. I move to lay the 66 Mr. DUNN of Perry moved to lay the amend-pending amendments on the table. ment upon the table. Upon this motion the yeas and nays were demanded and ordered, and the Secretary reported the following result-yeas 43, nays 72: Mr. COOKERLY called for a division of the question. The question being first on laying the amendment of the gentleman from Jay (Mr. Milligan) on the table, It was decided in the negative. The question then being on laying the amendment of the gentleman from Clark (Mr. Read) on the table, It was decided in the affirmative. Mr. McCLELLAND. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the word "four" and inserting "three." Mr. DUNN of Jefferson. I move to lay the amendment to the amendment on the table. The motion was agreed to. YEAS. Messrs. Allen, Anthony, Bascom, Beach, Berry, Biddle, Borden, Bright, Bryant, Carr, Carter, Chandler, Chapman, Clark of Tippecanoe, Coats, Cookerly, Davis of Vermillion, Dick, Dobson, Dunn of Perry, Duzan, Graham of Miami, Graham of Warrick, Mather, May, McClelland, McLean, Miller of Clinton, Miller of Fulton, Mooney, Morrison of Marion, Niles, Owen, Pepper of Ohio, Read of Monroe, Ristine, Sherrod, Shoup, Sims, Smiley, Snook, Trimbly, Wiley, and Wunderlich-43. NAYS.-Messrs. Badger, Ballingall, Beard, Bicknell, Blythe, Butler, Clark of Hamilton, Clements, Cole, Conduit, Davis of Madison, Davis of Parke, Dunn of Jefferson, Edmonston, Elliott, Farrow, Fisher, Foster, Frisbie, Mr. COOKERLY. I move to lay the amendGootee, Gordon, Gregg, Haddon, Hall, Hamil- ment to the amendment on the table. ton, Harbolt, Hardin, Hawkins, Helmer, Hen- Upon this motion, the yeas and nays were dedricks, Hitt, Hogin, Hovey, Howe, Huff, John-manded and ordered, and the Secretary reported son, Kelso, Kent, Kilgore, Kinley, Lockhart, the following result-yeas 63, nays 56: Maguire, March, Mathis, Miller of Gibson, Milligan, Milroy, Morgan, Murray, Nave, Newman, Nofsinger, Prather, Rariden, Read of Clark, Robinson, Schoonover, Smith of Ripley, Spann, Steele, Stevenson, Tague, Tannehill, Taylor, Mr. DUNN of Jefferson moved to amend the amendment by striking out the word "four" and inserting the word " "six." 1 YEAS.-Messrs. Anthony, Bascom, Beach, Bracken, Bright, Butler, Carr, Carter, Chandler, Chapman, Clark of Tippecanoe, Coats, Cookerly, Crumbacker, Davis of Parke, Davis of Vermillion, Dick, Dobson, Dunn of Perry, Duzan, Elliott, Fisher, Gootee, Gordon, Graham of Miami, Haddon, Hall, Hamilton, Hardin, Hawkins, Hendricks, Hitt, Johnson, Maguire, March, Mathis, May, McClelland, McLean, Milder of Gibson, Milligan, Milroy, Mooney, Morrison of Marion, Mowrer, Niles, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Crawford, Prather, Read of Monroe, Sherrod, Smiley,_ Snook, Smith of Ripley, Spann, Tague, Taylor, Thornton, Trimbly, Wheeler, Wiley, Wolfe, and Work-63. as amended, and a motion to re-consider the vote prevailed. The section was then so amended, as that the principle I desired to have incorporated in it, did not come directly before the Convention. I have therefore brought forward the present section, in order that we may have the opportunity of voting directly upon the principle itself. I had supposed that the language of my former amendment was so plain that it would be impossible to misunderstand it; NAYS.-Messrs. Badger, Balingall, Beard, and I must say to the gentleman from Hendricks, Berry, Biddle, Blythe, Borden, Bourne, Bryant, { (Mr. Nave,) that I was surprised at the concluClark of Hamilton, Clements, Cole, Conduit, sions he drew from the language of the amendDavis of Madison, Dunn of Jefferson, Edmons- ment. ton, Farrow, Foster, Frisbie, Garvin, Gibson, Mr. HOVEY moved to amend, so that where Graham of Warrick, Gregg, Helm, Helmer, Ho- rights or immunities have been or may heregin, Hovey, Howe, Huff, Kelso, Kilgore, Kin- afterb ecome vested by law in any company, citley, Lockhart, Mather, Miller of Clinton, Mil-izen, or citizens, the General Assembly shall ler of Fulton, Morgan, Murray, Nave, Nofsin- have no power to impair the same. ger, Rariden, Read of Clark, Ristine, Robinson, Schoonover, Shoup, Sims, Steele, Stevenson, Tannehill, Thomas, Wallace, Watts, Wunderlich, Zenor, and Mr. President-56. So the amendment to the amendment was laid on the table. Mr. SMITH of Ripley. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the word "four" and inserting the word “two." Mr. BASCOM. Mr. President, I call for the previous question. The call having been seconded by the Convention, the main question was ordered to be put. The PRESIDENT. The question is first upon the adoption of the amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was not .concurred in. The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Jay, (Mr. Milligan,) to strike out five," ," and insert "four." The amendment was adopted. Mr. SMITH of Ripley. There is a great deal of plausibility in the section offered by the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. Read,) and because of the plausibility of the principle it contains, I voted yesterday for the engrossment of the fifteenth section, with an amendment embodying this principle. I desire to vote for the present section if I can have my mind fully satisfied as to its extent and bearing. I desire to have the gentleman's own understanding of it, and therefore will ask him a question. Suppose the Legislature of the State of Indiana or this Convention grants the power to establish a State Bank and branches-there is now a limited number of these institutions under the present Constitution-would not the amendment of the gentleman conclude that power? Mr. READ of Monroe. Suppose the Legislature or this Convention should authorize the establishment of a State Bank and branches, upon the principle of the proposed section; in that case every branch would have to come in on the same terms. For example, if there was a sufficient amount of capital in a town or The section was then ordered to be engrossed village, it would be in the power of the capifor a third reading. RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES. Mr. READ of Monroe offered the following additional section: "The Legislature shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges and immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens." Mr. R. said, I think the Convention will bear me witness, that I have not hitherto been pertinacious in advocating a principle when there has been a disposition in the Convention to reject it. I have always willingly abided by the result. But it is well known that on last evening the principle contained in the section I have just offered was adopted in the form of an amendment to the fifteenth section of Art. 20, by a large vote. This morning the gentleman from Hendricks made objection to the section talists of that place to commence the business of banking as a branch of the State Bank, and upon the same conditions with other branches, and no one set of individuals in the business of banking could claim exclusive privileges. This destroys the monopoly principle, and I think that there are not twenty gentlemen even among those who are in favor of the State Bank, who would be in favor of this principle of monopoly. The doctrine of the section carried out in the laws and the Constitution would destroy monopoly State banking, but not prevent every system of State banking which might be devised. Mr. SMITH of Ripley. I thank the gentleman for the explanation. I understand from it that this proposition is conclusive against the State Bank upon the plan on which it is now organized, and I regret exceedingly, therefore, that I must vote against it. But, sir, I am com mitted on this point. I am a State Bank man. The State of Indiana has got stock in the State Bank, and has fixed limitations upon it and its branches; but if the principle of my friend from Monroe is carried, there will be no limitations upon banking at all. He goes to the fullest extent for free banking, and for digging the present State Bank up by the roots. Mr. BIDDLE. I desire to say a word or two in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. Read,) which meets with my cordial approval in every respect; and I think when it comes to be clearly understood in its effects by the members of the Convention, it will meet with the approbation of every gentleman in favor of equal rights. Sir, the proposition is a plain one, that there shall be no exclusive monopolies-no privileges granted to one man which shall not, under the same circumstances, belong to all men. It is a sound judicial principle, that may be applied safely and justly to the rights of all men. This principle leaves men of capital precisely where it leaves men in their natural condition-equal. If the majority of this Conventhem vote against the proposition. If they do tion will not grant to all men equal rights, let not desire to leave the road of capital, of skill, of enterprise, of talent, of industry, of worth, open alike to every citizen of Indiana, let them in the middle of the nineteenth century, wish vote against it. And if gentlemen on this floor, to declare before the world that all men are not created with equal rights, then, I say again, let them vote against this proposition. change my mind, that this section embodies a sound principle, and that it may be safely incorporated in the Constitution. From fears which I had heard expressed, not only in but out of this Hall, as to the effect of the section, I was desirous to listen to all the objections which could be urged against it. But the more I have listened to others and reflected upon the subject, the more strongly I have become confirmed in my first impressions. One word in regard to this proposition as it stands connected with the State Bank question. I do not attempt to conceal my opinions on that Mr. NILES. I would not rise to make a resubject; I shall vote against a State Bank. mark, except that from the motion which I proBut allowing that a majority here are in favor posed to submit this morning my position may of a State Bank that will not preclude them be misunderstood. I have been disposed to befrom providing for the application of this princi-lieve, from the first, and have not been able to ple as a general rule, with the exception in favor of a State Bank. This is the way to settle the Bank question, so far as it is connected with this proposition. Much has been said in regard to the application of this principle to rail and plank roads and ferries. The position taken by the gentleman from Hendricks (Mr. Nave) I consider a very unjustifiable one: that any corporation enjoying a certain monopoly, if you please, shall divide its profits with every citizen in the State. On the same principle, one indi- Surely no man would take a stand in favor vidual who makes a contract with another must the opposite doctrine, or be prepared to contend give the benefits of that contract to all his fel- that exclusive privileges ought to be granted. low citizens. The position, sir, is not a correct Present the question in that light and who one. Gentlemen have put the case of a ferry, would be found to vote for it? Who would be most frequently, as a case in point. Let us ex-willing to occupy such a position? amine it. There is a case now pending in the This section does not prevent the creation of Supreme Court, of a right to the exclusive use a State Bank, as some have seemed to fear; of a ferry which has been granted from year to for if banking, under the old system of one or year upon the conditions precedent, as prescrib- more special charters is adopted, the exception ed in the Statute of Indiana, which is claimed to will be specially provided for. If exclusive be held in fee simple. I will not speak of the privileges be permitted to any number of men judicial decision which should be made in the over all others, it can be justified only on the case, as it was my duty to decide it. But I un- ground of some over-ruling public necessity, dertake to say that this proposition interferes and for the sake of the public interests. And with no such right, or with the legislative pow- would it not be better to make such cases exer to grant the privilege of the use of the ferry ceptions to the general rule? But I apprehend from year to year as it is now granted. It does that the cases are extremely rare, and in my not mean that every citizen of Indiana has a judgment they never exist, in which the public right to a terry license before granted to anoth-interests are best promoted by the creation of er; it only means that every citizen may apply under the same circumstances and on similar terms. Of course when once granted it belongs to the recipient. Would it not be absurd to say that if there was a contract made with Aopen to all alike. and B for a year, C, D, and E could come in and have equal privileges with A and B after the contract was made? It means that C, D, and E have an equal chance with A and B in obtaining the contract. monopolies, though I would not use that word in its odious sense. I am no enemy to corporations, but I would have all laws upon such subjects general, and the door for competition The case of ferries has been referred to as one requiring exclusive privileges, but I have no fears that ferries cannot be sustained under general laws, and without tolerating burthensome monopolies. There are ferries in this State |