Houghton, Hubbell, Hugg, Johnson of Madison, Kerns, LaFollette, Leich, McCord, Mull, New, Newby, O'Brien, Phares, Schneck, Self, Shiveley, Watson, White, Wood. Total, 32.

Those voting for Mr. Mullen were:

Senators Alexander, Bobilya, Campbell, Drummond, Gill, Horner, Humphreys, Johnston of Dearborn, Nusbaum, O'Connor, Patten, Rinear, Rogers, Stroup, Sweeney, Ellison. Total, 15.

Mr. Egnew having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared duly elected Assistant Secretary of the Senate.

Senator McCord presented the name of Clamor Pelzer, of Warrick County, for Doorkeeper.

Senator Campbell placed Mr. J. L. Hullett in nomination for Doorkeeper.

Those voting for Mr. Pelzer were:

Senators Ball, Bethell, Bozeman, Collett, Duncan, Early, Gilbert, Gear, Gochenour, Goodwine, Gostlin, Hawkins, Hogate, Houghton, Hubbell, Hugg, Johnson of Madison, Kerns, La Follette, Leich, McCord, Mull, New, Newby, O'Brien, Phares, Schneck, Self, Shiveley, Watson, White, Wood. Total, 32.

Those voting for Mr. Hullett were:

Senators Alexander, Bobilya, Campbell, Drummond, Ellison, Gill, Humphreys, Johnston of Dearborn, Nusbaum, Patten, Rinear, Rogers, Shea, Stroup, Sweeney. Total, 15.

Mr. Pelzer, having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared duly elected Doorkeeper of the Senate.

The oath of office was then administered to Charles R. Lane, Principal Secretary; James W. Egnew, Assistant Secretary, and Clamor Pelzer, Doorkeeper, by Judge L. J. Hackney, of the Indiana Supreme Court.

The following resolution was presented by Senator Shiveley, of Wayne County:

Resolved, That the rules of the last Senate of Indiana be in force until the report of the Committee on Rules is received and adopted.

Which resolution was adopted.

The following resolution was presented by Senator Phares:

Resolved, That there be appointed by the presiding officer of the Senate a committee of three, to act in connection with a like committee of the House, to wait upon the Governor and notify him of the organization of both houses of the General Assembly, and that they are ready for the transaction of public business.

Which was adopted, and Senators Shiveley, Phares and Drummond were named as said committee.

Senator Newby moved to proceed to elect a President pro

tem.

Which motion was declared out of order by the President.

Senator Newby appealed from the decision of the President, which appeal was supported by Senator Houghton.

The question being, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the decision of the Seuate?"

The roll was called, and resulted as follows:

Those voting in the affirmative were:

Senators Alexander, Bobilya, Campbell, Drummond, Ellison, Gill, Horner, Humphreys, Johnson of Dearborn, Nusbaum, O'Connor, Patten, Rinear, Rogers, Shea, Stroup, Sweeney, Watson. Total, 18.

Those voting in the negative were:

Senators Ball, Bethell, Bozeman, Collett, Duncan, Early, Gilbert, Goar, Gochenour, Goodwine, Gostlin, Hawkins, Hogate, Holler, Houghton, Hubbell, Hugg, Johnson of Madison, Kerns, La Follette, Leich, McCord, Mull, New, Newby, Phares, Schneck, Self, Shiveley, White, Wood. Total, 31.

The appeal from the decision of the Chair being sustained, the question recurred upon Senator Newby's motion.

Senator La Follette presented the name of Senator Shiveley of Wayne.

Senator Sweeney presented the name of Senator Humphreys of Greene and Sullivan.

Those voting for Mr. Shiveley were:

Senators Ball, Bethell, Bozeman, Collett, Duncan, Early, Gilbert, Goar, Gochenour, Goodwine, Gostlin, Hawkins, Hogate, Holler, Houghton, Hubbell, Hugg, Johnson of Madison, Kerns, LaFollette, Leich, McCord, Mull, New, Newby, O'Brien, Phares, Schneck, Self, Watson, White, Wood. Total 32.

Those voting for Mr. Humphreys were:

Senators Alexander, Bobilya, Campbell, Drummond, Ellison, Gill, Horner, Johnson of Dearborn, Nusbaum, O'Conner, Patten, Rinear, Rogers, Shea, Stroup, Sweeney. Total, 16.

Senators Shiveley and Humphreys being paired.

Senator Shiveley having received a majority of all the votes cast was declared duly elected President pro tem. of the Sen

ate.

Senator Newby introduced the following complaint on contest of the seat of G. W. Rogers, by Uriah Culbert:

To the Senate of the State of Indiana:

The undersigned represents to your honorable body that in the election of the year of 1896, which occurred on the 3d of November, 1896, he was a candidate of the Republican party for State Senator from the county of Laporte, in the State of Indiana, and was upon the ticket as a duly certified candidate at such time. He avers that after such election and after the canvassing of such vote, his opponent, one George Rogers, was declared elected to such office, but that this contestant, Uriah Culbert, hereby contests said election and protests and objects to the awarding of such seat to said Rogers, because of the fact that upon a fair vote and fair count of legal votes of said Laporte County, said Rogers was not elected, but that this contestant was duly elected a Senator of the State of Indiana, in and for said county of Laporte at said election.

He therefore contests the right of the seat, the right of which has been certified to as belonging to said Rogers, and prays that upon investigation said seat be awarded to this contestant for the following reasons to wit:

First. Because said Rogers is ineligible and incapable to hold said office in such Senate for the reason that he and divers persons working for him in his behalf violated the election laws of the State of Indiana in various and divers ways, to wit:

a. That the Captain of the Salvation Army at Michigan City, Indiana, and divers other persons who were and are Republicans and intended to vote at said election for this contestant for the office of State Senator, were in divers ways intimidated by democrats for and on behalf of and in the interest of the said Rogers, and by reason of said intimidation said persons failed to vote at said election.

b. That the election board in the several townships and precincts in the county of Laporte in canvassing and counting the votes cast at said election counted a large number, to wit, fifty ballots for all the Democratic nominees on the Democratic county ticket in said county when in fact said ballots were stamped in the square in front of the name of Martin T. Kruger thereon and in no other place upon said ticket and that thereby said ballots and votes were all counted for the said Rogers when in fact none of said tickets and ballots should have been counted for him.

c. That in each and all the precincts of said county of Laporte a large number of persons, to wit: fifty persons were permitted to vote for the said Rogers who were not legally entitled to vote in said several precincts in said county by reason of the fact that they had not been bona fide residents therein during the time as required by law.

d. That the polls were not opened in the centre precinct of Center Township, in Laporte County, until 8 o'clock A. M. of the day of election, and that by reason of the failure to open the polls therein at 6 o'clock, as required by law, a large number of persons who desired to vote for this contestant for the office of State Senator failed to vote therein. That all of said persons were bona fide residents of said precinct, and entitled to vote therein.

e. That the polls were not opened in the first precinct of the Fifth Ward, in Michigan City, in said county of Laporte, until

6:30 A. M. of the day of election. That divers legal and qualified voters in said precinct, who desired to vote for this contestant for the office of State Senator at said election, failed to vote therein, by reason of the fact that they were employes of railroad companies, and were compelled to go to their work before the polls were opened. That if the polls therein had been opened at 6 o'clock A. M., as required by law, all of said persons could and would have voted therein for the contestant.

f. That in one of the precincts of said county that gave a majority of 22 on the face of the returns for the said Rogers for the office of State Senator, and were counted for him by the County Canvassing Board, that the clerks, and other members of the Election Board in said precinct failed to certify to the correctness of the returns from said precinct, as required by law.

Second. That there were a large number of persons, to wit: 50 persons, who voted for the said George Rogers in the various precincts of said county who had not resided in the State of Indiana for six months immediately prior to said election.

Third. That there were a large number of persons, to wit: 50 persons, who voted for the said George Rogers in the several precinct in the said county who had not resided in said precinct where they voted for thirty days immediately prior to said election.

Fourth. That there were a large number of persons, to wit: 50 persons, who were permitted to and did vote for the said George Rogers for Senator in the several precincts in said county who had not resided in the township wherein they voted for sixty days immediately prior to said election.

Fifth. That there were a large number of persons, to wit: 50 persons, who were minors and under the age of 21 years, who voted in the several precincts of said county for the said George Rogers for Senator of and from said county.

Sixth. That there were many other and divers gross irregularities, and as he believes frauds, perpetrated which resulted in depriving this contestant of a fair election.

Seventh. Your contestant further avers that he is now and has been continuously for the last twenty years a bona fide resident of Michigan City in the county of Laporte and State of