The bill making appropriations for payment of work and labor done on the State House, was then taken up.2

The question being on Mr Brown, of Ver’s, motion to strike out the clause requiring the citizens of Springfield to be sued for thesum of $16666 66 yet due.

Mr DOLLINS spoke against the amendment, and moved to lay it on the table, which was decided in the affirmative. Yeas 50, nays 33.3

So the Hause refused to strike out the enactment for bringing suit against the citizens of Springfield, and agreed that they ought to be sued.

Mr LINCOLN moved to amend by inserting a proviso, that if any one of the obligors in the bond shall pay his proportionate share of indebtedness, he or they shall be free from all further obligation on the bond.

Mr ROSS moved to lay the above amendment on the table; which was negatived. Yeas 36, nays 39.4

Mr CAVARLY moved to refer the bill and amendments to a select committee. Mr C said he had voted to lay on the table the motion to strike out, not because he wished to sue and oppress the citizens, but because the amendment appeared to him calculated to operate as an entire release of the debt: he would move to refer to a select committee, that the bill may be perfected so as to do justice and give satisfaction to all parties.

Mr LINCOLN deprecated delay; the wants of the workmen were most urgent, and he hoped no delay would take place.

Mr PECK spoke against delay on the ground of the necessities of those who had performed the work on the House. He suggested to Mr Cavarly to withdraw the motion to refer, and propose an amendment in accordance with the views he had expressed, so that the bill might be passed immediately.

Mr CAVARLY would pledge himself to report the bill immediately after dinner, if the reference should be had and he be the chairman of the committee.

Mr ROSS opposed the reference: the bill he [c]onsidered as good now as it would be after coming from the hands of the gentleman from Green, (Mr Cavarly.) He considered the amendment contemplated to be intended to defeat the debt.

Mr BROWN, of Vermilion, denied he had ever contemplated an entire release of the debt on the bonds given; he expressly repudiated any inference that he intended to release the obligation of this debt; he believed the parties bound would pay it, and were bound to pay it, though he thought it would more comport with the dignity of the House to release this debt. He proceeded further to deprecate the premature enforcement of this debt at this peculiar juncture, when a general paralysis palsied the energies of every part of the State.5

The question on the reference was then taken and negatived.

Mr BROWN, of Vermilion, then offered an amendment providing that a new bond might be executed, payable in three equal annual instalments, in lieu of the present bond; and,

Mr McCLERNAND moved to amend by adding a clause releasing entirely the citizens of Springfield from all obligation under the said bonds.

Mr McCLERNAND said he had offered this amendment believing it to be but justice to the citizens of Springfield that they should be released from this obligation, for several reasons; first, because it was not just or proper to make them pay a bonus for the erection of a State House in their city; secondly, because to enforce the payment at this time, would be unjust and oppressive; and thirdly, because it seriously affected the dignity and character of the State to enforce the payment of this money, as it presupposes bargain and sale, and the holding out of improper inducements to obtain the location of the seat of Government in this place: another reason against collecting the money was this, it is well known that both the State and the people are embarrassed; the people require indulgence, and it ought to be given to them; this was one reason, but the great ground on which he relied was this, that it is not becoming the people of this State to exact a bonus from a town or city for having the seat of Government located in such town: it carries on its face the evidence of fraud, bargain, and sale, and is evidently too unworthy a transaction to be countenanced by honorable men. It had been said in the course of debate that the mechanics and industrious working men of the city were those who would cheerfully suffer if the bond be enforced: if so, he held it to be due from us to the citizens, in all charity, to release them from all responsibility and from all liability whatever. It was but a small sum to the State, and could not benefit it or enable it to disembarrass itself from present difficulties. He held it was unjust and ignoble to have made this bargain: the general good of the State required the seat of Government to be located in a central place, and that a bonus of money ought not to have been the great and sufficient inducement for bringing the seat of Government here. It appeared to him, therefore, that the honor and dignity of the State required that the citizens should be entirely released from all further payment on their bond.

Mr MURPHY, of Perry, spoke in opposition to the amendment; he must say, that as for himself, he remained entirely unconvinced by all that had fallen from the gentlemen from Morgan and Gallatin, who had spoken in favor of releasing the citizens of Springfield from the payment of their debts. He could not, however agree with them in the views they had taken: the gentleman from Morgan says that we might just as well exact a bonus from the citizens of Alton for having the Penetintiary built there, as require this payment from Springfield for having the State House located here: and also the gentleman from Gallatin has assumed the position that it is derogatory to the dignity of a sovereign State to enter into a bargain and receive this bonus. It appeared to him that there was much sophistry in these arguments: it should be recollected that this was a voluntary undertaking on the part of the citizens of Springfield to pay such a sum towards the erection of this building in their city; it could not be said to be an injustice to them to take this sum towards this public expense, for they were benefitted by the work, and their property thereby more enhanced in value: it was but just, therefore, that while the other citizens of the State paid their taxes for this public work, those who were more especially and indeed exclusively benefitted should pay something in the shape of a tax, though voluntarily entered into, more than those who were not so immediately benefitted by the location. The principle on which this money was to be paid appeared to him correct; it was nothing but what was fair and just. This principle was recognized and acted upon in the matter of county seats, and its justice and correctness had never, as far as he knew, been called in question; it was well known to every member of this floor that laws were almost daily passed in this House requiring individuals on whose lands the county seat was to be located, to donate a certain number of acres for public purposes: this was a condition on which the county seat was to be located on any particular spot belonging to individuals, and they were always glad to accept the condition in consideration of the great advantages they derived in the increased value of their lands.—Now, the position of the citizens of Springfield was, in his view, precisely the same. The payment of this sum was one of the conditions they had voluntarily assumed as a small return for the valuable considerations they would receive by the location of the seat of government in their city, and he saw no reason why the calling upon them for the fulfilment of their contract should be characterised by gentlemen on this floor as ungenerous or unbecoming a sovereign State. Surely if a county was not disgraced by receiving a donation of lands towards the public expense of the county, the State was dishonored by receiving this sum from the citizens of Springfield. How many days ago is it since the gentleman from Gallatin proposed to donate 15 or 20 acres of land of canal lands for the purposes of a county seat?

(Mr McClernand explained: he had not proposed to donate the land, but to sell it.)

He (Mr Murphy) stood corrected; well, then, it was not a donation, but it was something very much like it, it appeared to him like the man who sold his dog for 100 dollars, and who got as he said, two fifty dollar dogs for it. Here was land worth $1000 and was sold for $10 to the county for its seat. Was not this intended as a donation? It was in reality nothing else but a bonus to the county for the location, and thus it appears that the gentleman himself acted in one case upon the very principle which he condemns as ignoble in another case; but if the principle is right as to counties, it is also right as to the State, for the counties collectively constitute the State. He should regret to see this amendment pass; he thought the money ought to be collected, and if it was not done now it never would be; now was the time, and he hoped the bill would be passed immediately.

Mr. OLDS moved to lay the amendment of Mr. McClernand on the table, which motion prevailed, ayes 69, noes 15.6

Mr TURNEY moved the previous question which was not ordered.7 Mr. T. then moved an amendment to the bill providing that the people of Wayne county should have a similar extension of time for the paying of their taxes: lost.

Mr. ROSS moved an amendment providing that no appropriation should be made until the citizens paid the amount of their bond—laid upon the table.

The amendment of Mr. Brown was laid on the table, ayes 43, noes 40.8

Mr BENTLY moved to lay the bill and amendment on the table lost.

Mr. ORMSBEE moved some further amendments, which were adopted.9

Mr LINCOLN moved to strike out $20,000 and insert $30,000, which was agreed to; and the bill ordered to a third reading.10