HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, February 2, 1859.CALUMET DITCH
Mr. Griffin's bill (70) appropriating $8,000 of the Lake county swamp laud fund to complete the Calumet Ditch, was considered (the order of busines being dispensed with on Mr. Edward's motion for the consideration of bills at this stage) and rejected on the third reading in the House of Representatives, by yeas 35, nays 37.
Mr. DOUGHERTY moved a reconsideration of this vote, which motion was carried by consent.
Mr. GRIFFIN made a statement of the provisions and merits oi this bill, appropriating $8,000 for the construction of the Calument Ditch, and moneys arising from sales of swamp lands belonging to Lake county - embracing the history of the legislation, and the administration under it, for the Calumet Feeder Dam, which against law now overflowed about 114,000 acres of swamp land in Lake county. The object was to drain these lands. It was likely that this fund would be exhausted, by draining contracts and stealing; and it was desirable to appropriate this portion before it should be clutched by the commissioners. No part of it was likely to get into the School Fund.
Mr. KEEFER, Mr. PROSSER and others considered that this bill interfered with what belonged to Lake county and her swamp land commissioner.
Mr. DOUGHERTY and Mr. HUNTER also objected.
Mr. BOYD remembered when the people of Lake county wanted no legislation in reference to the Illinois work. But the Legislature legalized it the Illinois dam in 1857, and that had been repealed at the extra session. The people of Lake county now seemed to ask the Legislature to take a responsibility which they were unwilling to take upon themselves under the general law.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone, explained, that this bill proposes to counteract the Swamp Land Commissioner's selfishness, by which he is draining his own, to the neglect of other swamp lands in the county, and compel this ditch to be made.
Mr. HARNEY gave his knowledge of the case, and the history of the operation of the Illinois company, and of the Lake county Swamp Land Commissioner. The Illinois company were bound to pay the damages of this overflow of these lands. But they had refused to do so; and now the proposition was to bring the Commissioner back to complete the very drainage which was abandoned upon the pledge of the Illinois Company,to pay damages - so carrying out for Lake county the objects of the Swamp Land Law.
Mr. DOBBINS should vote for the bill under the explanations of the gentleman from Lake.
Mr. PROSSER, also, under these explanations, should vote for the bill.
The bill was then passed the House of Representatives, by yeas 61, nays 21, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Austin, Baird, Black, Blythe, Bowman, Boxley, Brotherton, Carr, Cavins, Clark, Clayton, Colgrove, Collier, Comstock, Cotton, Dobbins, Duvoll, Edwards, Fordyce, Gifford, Griffin. Hall of Bush, Hamilton of Boone, Hamilton of Wayne, Hancock, Harney, Harrison, Hunter, Jeffries, Johnston, Kempf, Knowlton, Lawhead, McLain, Mansfield, Massey, Merrifield, Miller, Murray, Martin, Nebeker of Vermillion, Nebeker of Warren, Parks, Prosser, Ritter, Robinson, Rynerson, Scott, Sherman, Shockley, Shull, Smith of Miami, Smith of Perry, Snyder, Stanfield, Stiles, Sullivan, Treadway, Wheeler, Whiteman, and Mr. Speaker - 61.
NAYS - Messrs. Boyd, Dougherty, Early, Firestone, Gregory, Hartley, Jones, Jordan, Keefer, Kelley, Lewis, Major, Nelson, Row, Shields, Thompson of Elkhart, Thompson of Madison, Usrey, Whetzel, Wildman and Wood-15.
On motion by Mr. STANFIELD, Mr. Murray, of Elkhart and Lagrange, had leave of absence for the remainder of this week.
Mr. Edwards' bill (69) revising the Bridge law, was passed the final reading in the House of Representatives, by yeas 64, nays 12.
Mr. Parrett's bill (86) for the relief of Jane Walker, was passed the final reading, by yeas 77, nays 4Mr. Parrett explaining its provisions, &c., and attributing its authorship to Mr. Stinson, at home, sick.
Mr. Shull's bill (104) to amend section 7 of the act for the construction of levees and drains, approved June 7,1852, coming up -
Mr. SHULL explained the revisions of the act, (to cure a defect) and the bill passed the final reading, by yeas 61, nays 12.
INTEREST ON MONEY.
Mr. Martin's bill (123) concerning interest on money, coming up -
Mr. SULLIVAN moved to refer it to the Committee of the Whole - which subject is the special order therein for this afternoon - which was taken by consent.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone, moved instructions to strike out "eight" and insert "six," with reference to the legal vote of interest proposed, which was also referred.
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC PRINTING.
Mr. RITTER moved to take up his bill (97) to provide for the office of Superintendent of Public Printing, explaining the merit of the bill, and the emergency for its passage - calling upon gentlemen to come up and perfect the bill (which had been drawn up by practical men) without reference to party feeling.
Mr. TURPIE had examined the bill, and considered it inexpedient and unwise for the House to go any further with it. He charged that the gentleman's report on the public printing was exparte, unfair and partisan in its character, and without the facts or any just reasoning in the case, resulting in this proposition to create a new office.
Mr. RITTER. If the State Printer is not overpaid, why not give him a salary? All the object was to give the Superintendent a stated page: 121[View Page 121]salary, and require him to let out the work to the lowest bidder. A practical printer, doing busi ness in the town of Indianapolis, had proposed to the present Public Printer to do the State's work, and give him 25 per cent. profit.
Mr. HUNTER was opposed to the bill. He preferred to fix the prices of the State's printing, and provide against stringing out and leading the printed matter so as to swindle the State; to re quire the Printer to furnish paper, &c.
Mr. RITTER. The bill proposes to abolish the office of Public Printer, and that the Superintendent of Public Printing take his place. It did not really contemplate the creation of a new office.
The House refused to take up the bill - yeas 31, nays 41.
On motion by Mr. NEBEKER, of Warren, his bill (22) to amend the act concerning interest on money, was taken up. He stated that the object of the motion was to concur in the amendment of the committee, simply shortening the bill. The amendment could not go to the Committee of the Whole without the concurrence of the House.
The SPEAKER declared the motion out of order.
WORK FOR COMMITTEES.
Mr. Sherman's bill (168) to amend the act authorizing Railroad and other road Companies to borrow money, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Mansfield's bill (147) was referred to the same committee.
Mr. Whetzel's bill (124) was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. Hunter's bill (125,) Mr. Park's bill (126,) Mr. Colgrove's bill (127,) Mr. Stile's bill (128,) Mr. Clement's bill (129.) were severally referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Murray's bill (180) was referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. Blythe's bill (146) was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. Brotherton's bill (131)was referred to the committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Massey's bill (132) was referred to the Committee on Elections.
The Judiciary Committee's [ Mr. Turpie's] bill (133settlement of decedents estates) coming up -
On motion by Mr. TURPIE, it was amended by adding: "all laws and parts of laws contravening provisions of this act are hereby repealed" and so the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. Baird's bill (134) was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. NEBEKER, of Vermilllon, by leave, presented the petition of sundry citizens of Clintion, Vermillion county, asking for a conventional rate of interest as high as ten per cent., which Was referred to the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the auditor of State, responding to a resolution of the House, of the 19th inst., transmitting statements of the cost of transporting convicts to the Penitentiary, on either side of the National Road, which was referred to the Committee on the Penitentiary.
Mr. MERRIFIELD, by leave, presented the memorial of A. Lytle Jones, a resident of Porter county, submitting his claim for $100, as compensation for services as Assistant Prosecuting Attorney in Laporte county, which was referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. LAWHEAD, by leave, submitted th following, which was adopted:
Resolved,That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of repealing or modifying the laws in force authorizing railroad companies to take real estate subscriptions for stock, and to provide some method whereby farmers and others who have been cheated or defrauded of their farms, may recover the same back from such railroad companies, and that they report by bill or otherwise
INTEREST ON MONEY.
The House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, (Mr. Edwards in the Chair,) and took up the several bills concerning interest on money - and first the committee considered Mr. Stsmfield's bill (65) to amend sec. 4, of the interest law, so as to allow of the recovery of principal and interest in cases where more than legal interest has been contracted - the committee having heretofore adopted Mr. Colgrove and Mr. Usrey's amendment, substituting a conventional rate of interest as high as ten per cent, on money loaned - restricting banks to loans payable at their banking-houses, and from taking exchange on notes and bills payable at any other place, [as printed in page 84 of these reports.]
Mr. STANFIELD stated the provision of the original bill, and the reasoning for it, and the support which its principle had already received in our own legislation allowing the usurious money-lender to recover his principal. He regarded the amendment of Mr. Colgrove as out of order - not being germane or pertinent to the preposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment was adopted by the committee the other day. And since Mr. Martin's bill, (123) with an amendment, and also a petition on this subject, from sundry citizens of Vermillion county, and another bill have been referred to this committee, the parliamentary law prescribes that questions can only be put upon motion. The question to recommend the bill as amended to the House, pending when the committee rose last Wednesday, will be put, unless another motion be made, which can have precedence of that.
Mr. Speaker GORDON moved to report a motion to the House that the bill and amendment be indefinitely postponed. The burden of proof was upon the friends of this proposition raising the rate of interest. He had before endeavored to refute the arguments submitted in favor of it. Since the former discussion, he had learned that the Ohio Legislature-(a State where they had made trial of the higher rate)have returned to the old rate of 6 per cent. He went on, at some length, with the argument against any increase of the present legal rate.
Mr. STANFIELD stated the order, and acquiesced in the motion of Mr. Gordon.
page: 122[View Page 122]Mr. COLGROVE reiterated his former argument for his amendment - alleging again, that the banks were the Shylocks in our State, and replying to Mr. Gordon. It was not proposed to establish the rate of 10 per cent., but to establish a principle of law bv which parties shall not contract for more than 10 per cent, he supposed when his amendment was adopted in Committee of the Whole the other day, that the vote thereon was a test of the feeling of the House on the subject.
Mr. COMSTOCK. In his opinion, whoever pays more than 6 per cent., "pays too dear for his whistle." He would adhere to those rules of law which were calculated to enrich a people. He would not, by his vote, give countenance to any principle that would oppress the arm of labor.
Mr. DOBBINS defined his position to the question. The principle of the bill involved a contest between capital and labor A mechanic himself, he would give no vote for a law to oppress the mechanics of the State- He showed the practical workings of such a law as the bill proposed, and honed the committee would recommend its indefinite postponement.
Mr. MELLETT, though not in favor of this bill, he and his constituents were in favor of some change of the law on this subject. Some legal rate should be fixed, to determine the value of the use of money in the absence of any contract, but beyond this, he considered, there should be no restriction upon contract for interest. He replied to the foregoing arguments against the bill. The opposition to the bill proceeded upon the principle that men did not know how to take care of their own interests in a contract. If gentlemen would have laws and contracts enforced, there was a necessity that there should be discretion allowed to the contracting parties. No law should restrict the discretion of parties competent to contract, &c.
Mr. STILES also spoke at length on the whole subject, submitting conclusions his opposition to the passage of the bill, and in reply to sundry arguments in support of it. The plea of violation was no argument against the law. There was no law in all the code hut could be made liable to such an objection. He was willing to vote for a law giving ten per cent, on contract, with the privilege of avoiding the four per cent excess, by paying the legal rate and accruing costs.
Mr. PARRETT looked at some of the probable results of the passage of the bill. It would induce the most stringent collections of money in order to put it out at interest. It would draw money from the manufacturer and the laborer, and put it into the vaults of the capitalist. It was the duty of the representative here to protect the interests of the whole peoplenot the interests of the few, &c.
Mr. GRIFFIN. The operation of the bill would not reach the case of the debtor, about which gentlemen had been warmly talking. It was only to affect money loaned upon contract Readmitted that the onus of the justice and the emergency of the bill rested upon its friends, and proceeded to distinguish between things right in - themselves, and things made right by law a thence to show that this people - the borrowing classes of the people - were desirous of a higher rate of interest, and the Legislature had only to authorize it and it became right. Such, alone, would enable individuals to come into equal competition with bankers in the business of hiring money; it would "remove the deposits" from the banks and invest the money elsewhere. The ten per cent, law in Ohio had accomplished its objecthad drawn capital with her borders, and now she was prepared to repeal it, &c.
Mr Speaker GORDON regarded the amendment of Mr. Colgrove as unconstitutional, because it was an infraction of that clause which prohibits the Legislature from granting to any citizen, or class of citizens, any privilege or immunity which is not extended equally to all. Here was the privilege of four per cent, advantage to the money-leader. What an immense advantage this privilege would give to the banks. It would increase the annual amount of interest paid by the people of Indiana to three million of dollars. And such a thing was demanded by the people! say the gentleman from Randolph and the gentleman from Lake. There were not 300 names on all the petitions of the session asking for such a law, &c. He looked at the past experience of the State under legislation in this direction, and replied to the foregoing arguments. This same scheme of a high rate of interest was now cramping and crushing out the energies of the people of the State of Wisconsin, &c.
Mr. NEBEKER of Warren, made an effectual motion, that the committee rise, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
Mr. Speaker Gordon's motion to recommend the indefinite postponement of Mr. Stanfield's bill, as amended, was now agreed to.
On motion by Mr. AUSTIN, it was agreed that the committee recommend that Mr. Martin's bill (123) and amendments thereto, be laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. STANFIELD, the committee rose, and the Chairman reported their action, as above.
The House then (at 4:45 o'clock) adjourned.
