The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1878-08-14


the roll calls of March l pertaining to the
state house bill and also the one of March 9,
taken on the passage of the bill, and find
them all in my own handwriting. This ex-
onerates Messrs. Hay and Stafford. whose
names have been used In connection with
this subject.
The roll call published in your paper is q
copy of roll call No. OF March l. and it is a
true copy. The vote Is unauestionably 40 to
40, and had the speaker thus announced the
result, the bill would have been lost But
it was not so announced by him, because it
was not so reported to him. The speaker
does not count the roll call votes, but an
nounces them as they are counted and re-
ported by the clerk, and in this case was in
no way responsible for the mistake that was
made.
That it was mistake will be clear to all
men who have had any experience in calling
rolls in legislative assemblies. During hours
of confusion, when the responses of MEM
bers can hardly be heard, when the roll call
must be gone over three or four times. with
absent members coming in and asking to
vote, and those who have voted changing
from one Nde TO another, many mistakes oc-
cur. Under such circumstances it is almost
impossible to keep roll call correct. The
wonder is that there are not more mistakes
made. Doubtless many have been made by
me during my eight sessions as principal
clerk of the house, but have never made
an incorrect return of a roll call knowingly.
This roll call carries the evidence of mistake
with it, the duplicate number a. 1t a
clerk wanted TO perpetrate a fraud he would
not do 1t by making duplicate numbers
1t has been charged that there was state
house ring This 1 have never believed.
Id.
public or private meetings held in the inter
est of the state house bill, and L do not now
believe that single dollar was improperly
spent to carry through this state house bill.
From the very beginning of the session it
was plain to see that large majority of the
house was in favor of q new state house, the
only difficulty being to agree upon plan.
And on the final passage of the bill it is my
belief that many voted against 1t who we're
really in favor of some law on the subject.
Certain l am that no one ever dared ask me
to commit fraud in the passage of that or
any other bill. But let il be distinctly IN
derstood that, so far as this mistake is con-
cerned, no living being but myself is respon-
sible, even in the remotest degree. Place IL
upon my shoulders, and there let it rest.
Now a word as to the published roll call,
and the remarks of the Terre Haute Ex-
press thereon: If the Express could see the
original roll call it would see that the first
footings at the bottom of the page were ayes
46; noes, 43. Before the speaker announced
this vote Mr.. Askren came in and the clerk
called his name, which made A nays. Then
Mr.. Johnson, of Carroll, asked to change his
vote, and the CLERK failing to see Mr.. Ask
ren's vote, nearly at the top of the left hand
column, took Mr.. Cooley's 43 as Mr.. John
sons A. After this the 45 was written
across the original figure 40, and a across
the original 43. All this the original roll
call plainly shows Mr.. Askren and Mr..
Cooley were both known to be opposed to
the state house bill, and if the clerk had de-
sired to commit a fraud in favor of the bill
he need not have taken the pains after the
roll call had been called once to go back and
call again, to give Messrs. Askren and
Cooley a chance to vote against the
bill. The roll call shows that he did
this. The Express says Kennedy, of
Rush, should have voted %. But he
must recollect that Johnson, of Car
roll, was % and Kennedy 80. and so stood
until the roll call had been called through
twice. and perhaps three times and the foot
ings made 46 to 43. Then johnson changed =.
his vote to the negative, and the pencil was
drawn across his No. %. When action like
that occurs we do not change the following
numbers, but deduct the number of changes
from the totals. In this case there was enc
change, which was at once deducted from
the total 46, and the ayes were then written
IS. This whole mistake occurred with Ask
I
Nothing has been written here except what
the roll call will show to those who are
familiar with roll calls. In this published
roll call Mr.. Coniey votes In the negative,
and Mr.. Dannattell does not vote. But on
the first roll call of March the Ist-tbe first
vote taken on this state house bill-both of
these gentlemen are recorded in the affirma-
tive. III they did not so answer some one
responded for them. MIR. DannatteIl thinks
he was not present at that time, and saws he
can prove it by Mr.. Welborn: vet he and
Mr.. Welborn are both recorded as present
and voting IN the negative on house bill
No. 3, which vote was taken q few
minutes after the other. On the final pas
sage of the state house bill on the 9th of
March both these gentlemen voted against il.
Now in view of the mistake that has been
made, what will the result be? Was the bill
legalized by subsequent action of the gener-
al assembly? Will the question be passed
upon by the courts? Governor Williams
says the courts will not 90 behind the re-
turns. Should the courts deem it their duty
to go behind the returns, L here suggest to
them, and all others who want to investi-
gate, new question, and that is this: When
the house refused. just before taking the
vote or this bill March i, to second Judge
Cartoons motion for the previous question
on the passage on the bill, did
it not kill the bill for that day, and
make the subsequent action OF the house
thereon troll call No. 81 illegal7 If this be
so, the bill was properly before the house on
the 9th day of March, when it passed. TSee
Cushing, p $50, sec. l. 424. last clause, and
p. 500, sec. 1,430.
Now, In CONCLUSION allow me to say that
in my opinion no amendment should be
made to this state house law, unless it be
such as will more completely cut out all
swindlers and Spectators in public build
ings, hold the commissioners, architects and
contractors to more rigid performance of
duty and accountability TO the people, and
punish with extreme penalties any man
connected with the state house work who
attempts to defraud the state. or TO make
the state house cost over 81, 000,0
Thanking the Courier for its uniform kind
ness to me, | am yours very truly,
CYRUS 7. Nixon.