INTEREST ON MONEY.
The SPEAKER announced the consideration of the unfinished business - the several bills concerning the interest on money - the first question being on the recommendation of the committee of the whole to lay Mr. Nebeker of Warren's bill (22) on the table.
The recommendation was concurred in.
The next recommendation of the committee off the whole - to table Mr. Martin's bill (123) was also agreed to.
To the third recommendation reported from the committee of the wholethe indefinite postponement of Mr. Stanfield's bill, (65) with the amendment -
The SPEAKER held this recommendation cuts off the amendment, (Mr. Colgrove's) adopted in committee of the whole.
Mr. NEBEKER, of Warren, took the floor in a general speech on the whole subject, in favor of a conventional rate of interest, defending the proposition he had introduced, and reviewing the arguments heretofore submitted in opposition to its principle.
Mr. PROSSER defined his position to the question, arguing at length the various points made in the debate, and introducing many conclusions against a higher rate of interest.
Mr WHITEMAN spoke in reply to the arguments against Mr. Colgrove's amendment for 10 per cent, on contract.
Mr. RYNERSON defined his position - speaking in opposition to any increase of the rate.
Mr. SHERMAN made a general speech in favor of a conventional rate.
Mr. POWER spoke in the same behfli.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone, gave a his views against any change in the Interest law.
Mr. STANFIELD defined the single object of the bill as expressed in the title - to allow the recovery of principal and interest, where more than legal interest is in the contract.
Mr. DOBBINS demanded the previous question, and under its force, the House refused to postpone the bill, by yeas 35, nays 46.
Upon the question, "Shall the bill be ordered to engrossment?" Mr. Stanfield demanded the previous question, and under its force, the vote thereon stood-yeas 38, nays 43as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Blythe, Boxley, Branham, Brotherton, Cavins, Clark, Collier, Early, Fordyce, Gifford, Gregory, Hamilton of Wayne, Hancock, Harrison, Jeffries, Keefer, Lewis, McLain, Mansfield, Merrifield, Nebeker of Vermillion, Nebeker of Warren, Newton, Ritter, Scott, Sherman, Shull, Smith of Miami, Stanley, Stanfield, Stiles, Sullivan, Thompson of Elkhart, Turpie, Waterman, Wheeler, Wildman, and Mr. Speaker - 38.
NAYS - Messrs. Bowman, Carr, Claypool, Clayton, Clements, Comstock, Cotton, Dobbins, Dougherty, Duvol, Edwards, Firestone, Griffin, Hall of Grant, Hamilton of Boone, Harney, Hartley, Hunter, Johnston, Jordan, Kelly, Kempf, Knowlton, Lawhead, Major, Massey, Mellett, Nelson, Parks, Power, Prosser, Robinson, Rynerson, Scott, Shields, Shockley; Smith of Perry, Snyder, Thompson of Madison, Treadway, Usrey, Whetzel, Whiteman and Wood - 43.
So the bill was rejected.Mr. MELLETT gave notice of his intention to move to reconsider this vote.
WABASH AND ERIE CANAL.
Mr. EDWARDS, (the order of business having been suspended for the purpose,) presented the memorial of sundry citizens of Indiana, interested in the Wabash and Erie Canal, adopted by a public meeting of delegates convened in the town of Indianapolis on the 1st day of February, 1859, signed by M. W. Foster, President, and Joseph Ristine, Secretary.
Mr. USREY moved its reference to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions.
Mr. HARNEY desired the direct question on indefinite postponement.
Mr. DOUGHERTY would rather make it a special order for to-morrow week.
Mr. HAMILTON did not believe that the petition fairly represented the wishes of the people all along the line of the canal.
Mr. EDWARDS had presented the memorial without knowing what it proposed or thinking what should be the action of the Legislature. But he knew that citizens of the State have a right to be heard here, and that it is our duty to give them a respectful hearing. The gentlemen composing this Convention were men of influence and character and credit in the State; and he thought it no more than proper and respectful that the petition should be made a part of the special order for next Friday - the day set apart for the consideration of Mr. Murray's resolution on the same subject. Certainly the right of petition should be respected as far as this. He knew not what action he should himself take upon this subject, and desired to be still further advised and informed of the matter. He desired to say that whilst he was not ready to vote for taking back the canal he was also unwilling to see the property of citizens of the State of Indiana depreciated or lost by the abandonment of the canal. The property of our citizens along the canal had already depreciated twenty per cent. He could not be indifferent to this; and it was a proper subject for the consideration of the Legislature. Several public meetings have been held and one page: 130[View Page 130] was prosed to be held in Vigo county to-morrow, upon this matter, and if his constituents were to petition upon the subject, he expected that they would be heard. He was astonished to hear gentlemen declare themselves ready to refuse to hear this petition.
Mr. COLLIER made an ineffectual motion to lay the memorial on the table, until others might be received.
Mr. GIFFORD was opposed to taking any action, giving out a desire to retract or take back the contract with the bond holders, or making even the smallest appropriation to keep up the canal. He lived along the White Water Canal, and when they suffered from floods on account of it they looked only to parties interested for the proper correction. We might have come up with just as pitiful a statement.
Mr. EDWARDS alleged that this was not a parallel case.
Mr. RITTER. Why don't these people go to the bondholders?
Mr. EDWARDS. If bondholders refuse to keep up the canal, he would have legislation, which would enable the people interested to keep it up, &c.
Mr. HUNTER, If the State has no power over this canal, why do these people come here? If the bondholders really wish it, let private en-terprize take it up. He regarded this as an entering wedge looking to taking back this canal. We could as well vote relief to any other suffering party in the State as to listen to the prayer of these petitioners, &c. These bondholders have petitioned for relief, because they say the railroads chartered by the State have destroyed their canal. We do not listen to them, and they come with more reason than these citizens of Indiana.
Mr. MERRIFIELD demanded the previous question, and under its force, the memorial was indefinitely postponed - yeas 53, nays 14.
Mr. CLAYPOOL, by unanimous consent, explained, that there never had been a petition presented here, since he had been a member, without a respectful hearing. This involved a question of great interest to his constituents, and he should vote against postponing , because he considered the postponement of this would prevent the subject from being brought up hereafter. Observing the House impatient, he voted "no."
Mr. GRIFFIN, by unanimous consent, said: Whilst I would vote against granting the prayer of the petitioners, I can not vote to postpone, on account of views of their right to a fair hearing.
So the memorial was indefinitely postponed.
Mr. KEMPF obtained leave of absence till Monday.
The House then (at 5:20 o'clock) adjourned.
