Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1843-02-11
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
PROM THE INDIANA JOURNAL.

10 settle the disagreement relative the district
log, reported as the best that could be agreed up
on by the committee, that the House bill be a
doptcd with amendments transferring Madison
from the 4ih TO the 9th, and Morgan from The 9TH
to The 9th
Mr. Gregory opposed concurrence.
Mr. Mitchell protested against the way the
State had been Distracted and especially the way
the two northern districts had been framed by
The House, by which the democratic majority IN
T. khart had been smothered under the heavy
wing ma ioriiies Of ST. Joseph and Laporte, which
he SAID would eternally disfranchlse them.
A message received from the House sta
ting ha, they had unanimously adopted the re-
port Of the committee of free conference.
Mr.. WaIpoe favored concurrence.
Mr.. Bradley ns'onished that the commit
ieo had sacrificed much they had. There
had been no compromise made, for the Senator
on that committee had gwen up all. He conten
ded that Fountain county should be placed m
the Vlgo district and Hendricks in the Montgom-
cry district He could no, go for concurrence.
Mr.. Parker coniended that he had on that com
mittee labored with the utmost zeal 10 procure
the assent Of that committee TO the Senate's a
mendmen. spoken Of by Mr.. Bradley. He had
found that the only alternative was TO take this
compromise that was adopted by the commit &C
or to fail entirely in tho dIstrictIng lie regret
ted most especially that the TIppecnnoe battle
field should be placed in a determined locofoco
ties were as near agreeing now, he thought, as
they ever could be.
Mr.. Tannehili favored concurrence. 1t was
true there were quite a number of Wing districts
in the bill, but he, for his part liked to run in a
Wing district
Mr.. Morgan thought tho compromise unreason-
able and could not in us'ice to his constituent Is
concur.-llis district according to ii contained
81 900, and the next one only 1000.
Mr.. R'tchey did not appear TO like the report,
but did not speak explicitly.
Mr.. Gregory said party would father the
bull as II now stood and again opposed concur
renee. Indy dual interests had had too much TO
do with il. and those who voted for II would be
ashamed Of II within ten years. MIR. Gregory
continued at length,
MIR. Ewing opposed concurrence. and said tho
bill il stood was no, Just. He conended
that the disiric, in which he resided framed
without any regard to justice, equity, or the act
OF Congress lie said that the next Legislature,
no matter which party had the ma ority, would
condemn the net, wipe il from the statute book,
and call on Congress TO perform the duty of
framing The districts out Of contiguous territory
which this bill had not done.
Mr.. Alexander opposed concurrence but not
from the same principles which aciuated other
gentlemen. His county had no identity OF IN
terest with tho district in which II Is placed
and regard for The wishes OF his constituents
impelled him 10 oppose concurrIng with the re-
port of tho committee.
Mr. Pennington favored concurrence, believing
it was as near satisfactory TO all parties could
be accomplished
The question was then taken upon concnrring
with the report of the committee with the follow
ing result:
of L., Collins, Corno,t, Cotton, Davis, Defrees,
Dobson, Everts, Farmer, Harris IIetfieId, Hoover,
kelso, Kennedy, Parker, Parks, Pennington,
Pitcher. Read, Ritchey. Sands, Shanks, Stanford,
Tannehill and Wa,ts-2S. Ii wings and IA To-
cos.
NOES--Messrs. Alexander, BRADLEY, Bright,
Buell. Ewing. Gregory, Herman, Hodge. Miller,
Mitchell Motlatt, Morgan, Mount. Odell Reeve,
Sinclair, Walpoe and Wrisht-l9. ii wings
and Iocos, including the candidate for LIeu,en~
ant Gov ernor
The following exhibits the Districts as es,a5-
lished.
Is, District composed of the counties of Pc
sey, Vanderburgh, Gibson, Pike, Dubois WarrIck,
Spencer. Perry, Crawford, Orange and Marion. .
I'd. Clark, Washington, Scott, kson, Jeer- I
son, Jennipg, and Floyd
Sd. Dearborn, Ripley, Rush, Switzerland, De. |
catur and Franklin.
4,h Fayette, Union, Wayne and Henry.
9Th. Hamilton. Marion, Hancock, Shelby, |
Johnson, Bartholomew and Brown.
9th Monroe, lawrence, Martin, Davies, Knox,
Owen, Green. Sullivan and Morgan.
7,h Vigo, Clay, Putnam, Park, Vermillion and
Hendricks.
Sth. Montgomery, Fountain, Warren, TIpPe |
canoe, Clinton Boon and Carroll.
9th Jasper, White, Cass, Miami. Fulton, Pu-
Iaski, Koscusko, Marshall, Stark, khart, ST. Jo-
serhs, Laporte, Porter, Lake, Wabash and Ben
ton.
10Th. Randolph, Delaware, Grant, Blackford.
Jay, Adams, Wells, Huntington, Allen. Whitley, +
Dekaib, Steuben and Lagrange.
SENATE, Feb. 6, 1919. Mr.. kelso. from Ju I
dietary committee, reported that divorces granted
by the legislature were in violation Of the Con.
st.tuton of the Union and of the State. and re-
the adoption Of resolutions declaring /
that in the opinion of the Senate il is unconst I
iutional, inexpedent and improper for the Senate
TO pass divorce bills.
Mr.. Collins opposed concurrence, and cited au-
thori,es of tenor opposite from the conclusions
Of the report.
Mr. Gregory spoke on the same side and Mr..