MR. SPEAKER:

Your Joint Committee on Enrolled Bills report that this 12th day of February, 1873, they presented Enrolled House bill No. 71, and Enrolled House bill No. 361 to the Governor for his approval.

The special order being the consideration, of sundry claims against the State

The claim of N. B. & E. Taylor was taken up.

The qustion being, shall the report of the committee be concurred in and the claim allowed?

Messrs. Satterwhite and Peed demanded the ayes and noes.

Those who voted in the affirmative were, Messrs. Anderson, Barker, Barrett, Baxter, Billingsley, Bowser, Branham, Broaddus, Buskirk, Butterworth, Butts, Clark, Claypool, Cline, Cobb, Cole, Crumpacker, Dial, Eaton, Edwards (of Lawrence), Gifford, Glasgow, Goudie, Gronendyke, Hatch, Hedrick, Heller, Hollingsworth, Hoyer, Isenhauer, Johnson, King, Lenfesty, Martin, McConnell, McKinney, Miller, North, Odle, Ogden, Prentiss, Reeves, Richardson, Rudder, Stanley, Thompson (of Elkhart), Thompson (of Spencer), Tingley, Walker, Wesner, Willard, Wilson (of Blackford), Willson (of Ripley), Wood, Woodard, Wynn and Mr. Speaker-57.

Those who voted in the negative were, Messrs. Blocher, Durham, Ellsworth, Givan, Henderson, Jones, Kirkpatrick, Peed, Reno, Rumsey, Satterwhite, Schmuck, Shutt, Smith, Spellman, Teeter, Thayer, Troutman, Tulley and Whitworth-20.

So the report was concurred in and the claim allowed.

The following message was received from the Senate by the Secretary thereof:

MR. SPEAKER:

I am directed by the Senate to herewith transmit to the House of Representatives, for the signature of the Speaker thereof, the following enrolled act, to-wit: Enrolled act No. 62, of the Senate, entitled "An act to amend sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of an act entitled 'An act to incorporate the town of

Bluffton,'" approved February 12, 1851, and also to repeal section 11 of said act.

The Speaker announced that he had signed Senate Enrolled Act No. 62.

The claim of Barbour & Jacobs and the report thereon was taken up.

The question being, shall the sum of $1,600 be stricken out? Messrs. Peed and Stanley demanded the ayes and noes.

Those who voted in the affirmative were, Messrs. Baker, Barrett, Blocher, Bowser, Buskirk, Butterworth, Clark, Cline, Crumpacker, Durham, Ellsworth, Givan, Goudie, Hatch, Heller, Henderson, Hollingsworth, Hoyer, Isenhauer, Jones, Martin, McConnell, McKinney, Miller, Odle, Ogden, Peed, Reeves, Reno, Richardson, Rudder, Rumsey, Satterwhite, Schmuck, Spellman, Stanley, Teeter, Troutman, Tulley, Wesner, Whitworth, Willard, Wilson (of Blackford), Wood, Woodard, Wynn and Mr. Speaker -47.

Those who voted in the negative were, Messrs. Anderson, Baxter, Billingsley, Branham, Broaddus, Butts, Cobb, Cole, Cowgill, Dial, Edwards (of Lawrence), Gifford, Glasgow, Hedrick, Johnson, King, Kirkpatrick, Lenfesty, North, Prentiss, Shutt, Tingley, Thompson (of Elkhart), Thompson (of Spencer), Walker and Willson (of Ripley)-27.

So the sum of $1,600 was stricken out.

The question being, shall the blank be filled with $1,000?

It was so ordered, and the report as amended was concurred in and the claim allowed.

The claim of McDonald, Butler & McDonald was taken up, the report of the committee concurred in and the claim allowed.

The claim of Holland & Binkley was taken up.

Mr. Peed offered the following amendment to the report:

Amend by striking out "$2,300," and insert" $1,000" in lieu thereof.

Mr. Cowgill moved to lay the amendment offered by Mr. Peed on the table.

The question being, shall the amendment offered by Mr. Peed be laid on the table?

Whereupon Messrs. Peed and Satterwhite demanded the ayes

and noes.

Those who voted in the affirmative were, Messrs. Baxter, Cobb, Cole, Cowgill, Edwards (of Lawrence), Goudie, Hatch, Hedrick, Isenhauer, Kirkpatrick, Lenfesty, Miller, Ogden, Walker, Wesner, Willson (of Ripley), Wynn and Mr. Speaker-18.

Those who voted in the negative were, Messrs. Anderson, Barker, Barrett, Billingsley, Blocher, Bowser, Broaddus, Buskirk, Butterworth, Butts, Clark, Claypool, Cline, Coffman, Crumpacker, Durham, Ellsworth, Gifford, Givan, Glasgow, Gronendyke, Heller, Henderson, Hollingsworth, Hoyer, Jones, Kimball, Martin, McConnell, McKinney, North, Odle, Peed, Prentiss, Reeves, Reno, Richardson, Rudder, Rumsey, Satterwhite, Schmuck, Shutt, Spellman, Stanley, Teeter, Tingley, Thompson (of Elkhart), Thompson (of Spencer), Troutman, Tulley, Whitworth, Willard, Wilson (of Blackford), Wood and Woodard—55.

So the amendment was not laid on the table.

Mr. Butterworth offered the following amendment :

Amend by inserting $1,500 in place of amount allowed by Committee on Claims.

Which amendment upon motion of Mr. Woodard was laid on the table.

The question being put by the Speaker, shall $2,300 be stricken out of the report of the committee.

Whereupon Messrs. Peed and Satterwhite demanded the ayes and noes.

Those who voted in the affirmative were, Messrs. Anderson, Barker, Barrett, Billingsley, Blocher, Bowser, Brett, Broaddus, Buskirk, Butts, Clark, Claypool, Cline, Coffman, Cole, Crumpacker, Durham, Ellsworth, Gifford, Givan, Glasgow, Goudie,

Gronendyke, Hatch, Heller, Henderson, Hollingsworth, Hoyer, Isenhauer, Jones, Kimball, Martin, McConnell, McKinney, Miller, North, Odle, Peed, Prentiss, Reeves, Reno, Richardson, Rudder, Rumsey, Satterwhite, Schmuck, Shutt, Smith, Spellman, Stanley, Teeter, Thompson (of Elkhart), Thompson (of Spencer), Troutman, Tulley, Whitworth, Willard, Wilson (of Blackford), Wood, Woodard, Wynn and Mr. Speaker-62.

Those who voted in the negative were, Messrs. Baxter, Butterworth, Cobb, Cowgill, Edwards (of Lawrence), Hedrick, Kirkpatrick, Lenfesty, Ogden, Tingley, Walker, Wesner and Willson (of Ripley)-13.

So the sum of $2,300 was stricken out of the report.

Mr. Willson, of Ripley, offered the following amendment :

Amend by inserting $2,000.

Which amendment on motion of Mr. Barrett was laid on the table.

Mr. Troutman offered the following amendment :

Amend by inserting $1,200.

Which amendment on motion of Mr. Givan was laid on the table.

The question recurring upon the amendment offered by Mr. Peed. Which was adopted.

The report as amended was then concurred in and the claim allowed.

The claim of Joseph S. Buckles was then taken up.

The question being, shall the report be concurred in and the claim allowed?

It was so ordered.

On motion of Mr. Peed, the House adjourned until to-morrow morning at 9:30 o'clock.

This Journal was read in the hearing of the committee and found to be correct.

W. K. EDWARDS, Speaker.

THURSDAY MORNING.

FEBRUARY 13, 1873, 9:30 O'CLOCK.

The House met pursuant to adjournment, with the Speaker in the chair.

Prayer was offered by the Hon. James Rudder, Representative from Washington county.

The journal of yesterday was read in part, when, on motion of Mr. Woodard, the further reading of the same was dispensed with.

On motion of Mr. Woodard, House bill No. 391, was taken from the table and referred to the Committee on Public Buildings.

House bill No. 340 was taken up and passed over informally.

Mr. Branham introduced House bill No. 483-an act to amend an act, entitled "An act to enable railroads to alter their lines in certain cases," approved December 20, 1865.

Which bill was read a first time and referred to the Committee on Railroads.

Mr. Butts introduced House bill No. 484-an act authorizing turnpike companies to adopt the act of May 12, 1852, and all amendments thereto, and to amend section 18 of an act entitled "An act to allow county commissioners to organize turnpike companies when three-fifths of the persons representing the real estate within prescribed limits petition for the same, and to levy a tax for its construction, and provide for the same to be free," approved March 6, 1865.

Which bill was read a first time and referred to the Committee on Roads.