HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, February 6, 1861.The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Clerk of the stationery room in reply to a resolution of the House, bating that he had furnished each member of &e House with $3 worth of postage stamps, according to order.
Mr. ORR asked leave to submit a resolution, terminating debate on tbe reports of the Committee of Thirteen this day, at 12 o'clock.
It was objected to.
Mr. CAMERON (by unanimous consent)submitted the following, which was adopted by consent:
Resolved, That a Committee of Eleven-seven on the part of the House, and four on the part of the Senate-be raised to prepare and report a bill apportioning tho State into proper Senatorial and representative Districts; and that the President of the Senate and Speaker of tho House of Representatives be requested to consult together before appointing said Committee, so that each Cangressional District shall be represented on said Committee.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. WOODS presented the petition of Chauncey Wilson and others, residents in the near vicinity of Calumet river in Lake county, for abatement of the unmitigated nuisance of the Calumet Feeder Dam ; and on his motion it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WOODHULL presented the petition of sundry citizens of Steuben ceunty, asking for the abolishment of the county treasurer's office ; which was referred without reading to the Committee on County and Township Business.
Mr. CAMERON presented the petition of William C. Talcott and others, citizens of Porter county, for the repeal of the acts for tho formation of new counties; which was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CRAIN presented the petition for the new Common Pleas District, proposed to be composed of the counties of Parke, Vermillion and Putnam ; and asked that it be referred to the Select Committee of Three on that subject. It was so referred.
Mr. HENRICKS presented the petition of Thos. S. Stamfield and others, citizens of St. Joseph county, praying that the Surrogate system be adopted in place of the present mode of doing Probate business|; which was referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
Mr. KENDRICK presented the memorial of Thos. A. Goodwin, on the matter of economizing in the public printing, and proposing to do the printing and binding for the State 25 per cent, below the prices now allowed by law.
Mr. HEFFREN inquired after his bill to let out the public printing to the lowest bidder.
Mr. GRESHAM. It had been passed the second reading, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. HOLCOMB moved that the petition be referred to the select Committee on Printing.
page: 180[View Page 180]Mr. WOODHULL. If the printing could be done 25 per cent, below the prices now allowed by law, the provision ought to be made. He was opposed to the reference.
Mr. ROBBINS. Gentlemen had professed great anxiety for economy. He hoped now they would show their faith by works. He would have the House instruct the Committee on Ways and Means to report back the bill of the gentleman from Washington.
The petition was referred to the Printing Committee.
EXECUTION LAWS.
Mr. WOODHULL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned the resolution inquiring into the expediency of repealing all laws permitting the avoidance of the valuation act, requiring property by execution to sell for two-thirds its value, and reported legislation inexpedient, and that the resolution lie on the table.
The report was concurred in.
JUSTICES' JURISDICTION.
Mr. JONES, of Tippecanoe. from the Committee on Organization of Courts of Justice, returned Mr, Moss's bill [86] to amend sections 8 and 10 of the justices' act of June 9, 1852, so as to enlarge their jurisdiction in actions on tort and contract to $300, reporting the proposed amendment of the law neither expedient nor necessary and recommending the indefinite postponement of the bill and Mr. Combs's amendment.
Mr. HOLCOMB moved to lay the report on the table, and that the bill be recommitted. The proposed extention of the justices' jurisdiction was demanded by the people. It would save a great deal in costs. But somehow the lawyers were opposed to it.
Mr. HEFFREN. Two-thirds of the cases now tried before the justices had to go to the courts above. That was his observation. He hoped the report would be concurred in. Lawyers were opposed to increasing the magistrates' jurisdiction, because they know something about law and the management of business generally. Parties before justices generally come out losers by three times as much as if they go before the proper courts first.
Mr. KENDRICK was unwilling that the statement should go out from this House, that the justices of the peace haven't got sense enough to know what they are about.
Mr. HEFFREN would take it back as far as Marion county is concerned.
Mr. HOLCOMB. It was because the office was worth nothing that the justices were so generally incompetent.
Mr. WOODHULL. It was not because he had any pique against the justices that he was in favor of this report, but for many good reasons: It would-be better for the farmer for the law to remain unchanged. In the higher courts a judgment is a lien on the realty; whilst in the justices' court it is not. The party has to get a transcript of the judgment and file it in the Circuit or Common Pleas Court in order to get a lien on the realty. Then this bill would make the constable's office a far more important position. It was true also, as Mr. Heffren had stated, that two-thirds of the cases now adjudicated by justices go to the higher courts before they are closed. He represented a rural district, and there were none in his region desirous of this increase of jurisdiction.
Mr. NEBEKER represented a rural district, and his constituents were in favor of increasing this jurisdiction. He differed with the gentleman as to the effect of it. An individual living in a remote part of the county, and being sued, would much rather pay the mileage of the constable living near, than mileage from the county seat. The present law was antiquated. It was made when money was worth more than it is now-when farmers sold their corn for 10 cents, and their pork to the merchant for $1 25. Money was to be estimated in its relation to other things; and if it was worth twice aa much then as now this jurisdiction ought to be extended to at least $200.
Mr. NEWMAN. The reason why the lawyers as a class opposed this increase of the jurisdiction of the magistrates was, that they would not get quite so many cases before the higher courts.
Mr. FRASIER. Experience had taught him that most of the justices lacked qualification the necessary ability-to discharge well the duties pertaining to their office, especially where the position is not worth anything. But this was not the ground of his objection to the proposed amendment to the law. It was because, as the gentleman from Washington had said, it would increase litigation, that he would go against the bill. Increase this jurisdiction, and let a man sue before a justice on a note of $300. The defendant simply goes and employs a pettifogger-a constitutional lawyer-and he manages the card so as to get the justice to render judgment against him for five dollars or so more than is just and right. He then takes an appeal to the court, introduces his testimony, reduces the amount of the judgment to the proper amount, and throws the costs on the other side. This bill would increase the amount of litigation fully one-fourth or third, not only in the justices' courts, but in the courts of record.
Mr. ATKISSON took the ground that this bill would decrease litigation. If their jurisdiction were increased to three and five hundred dollars, most all the larger cases coming before the justices would be notes of hand, and no defense would be set up against them. And it would facilitate collections. Parties would not have to wait four to six months to get to trial. They could file their claims and take judgment immediately. And as for the interest of the lawyers, he did not think it could materially injure them. He was for extend page: 181[View Page 181]ing the jurisdiction to $300 and to $500, on account of judgment.
Mr. PROSSER. He knew nothing about practicing at the bar; but he always practiced outside. As a constitutional lawyer, he differed with those who would ignore this jurisdiction. An. important principle of law was as likely to arise before a justice of the peace & before a higher court; and it would encourage appeals. Extend the jurisdiction to $500 or $1,000, and every suit would be litigated before the justice and the Circuit Court. If gentlemen desired to make business for the levers, they should extend this jurisdiction.
Mr. EDSON did not often differ with his brethren; but it did seem to him that it was for their interest now to go in for an extension of this jurisdiction. He was satisfied of this from his little experience. There was quite a feeling among the people in favor of this extension, and there were not wanting men trying to pander it. It was that which had placed a lawyer on the same footing of respectability with a man wanting to keep a grocery-he must have a good moral character. Still, he believed the lawyers were able to take care of themselves even better than under the old Constitution.
Mr. COLLINS, of Adams. There were many acses brought before the Circuit and Common Pleas which would not be brought if the jurisdiction were extended, because of delays and postponements. One of these courts sits three times a year, and the other only twice, and postponements are easily obtained. Whereas, if a postponement is obtained before a justice it is only for a short time, and judgment can be had without such vexatious delays and expense. He admitted that there might be cases that would work hardships; but we cannot avoid all hardships. There were many instances where parties would prefer a judgment ; before a justice on three or four hundred dollars. As it regards the inferiority of the judgment of the justices of the peace, there was not a township in the State that could not select an honest man for that office. And if a man has a tolerable idea of what is just and right, even if he is not conversant with the law, his judgment will lead him to what the law is.
Mr. GRESHAM. If what had been said were an argument for increasing this jurisdiction, it were better to go on and abolish all the higher courts. He supposed a case involving a bill of exchange for $200. If it is prosecuted with any vim at all, do we not know that parties would not be satisfied with the judgment of a justice of the peace? If it were determined to pass this bill, its friends should go farther, and provide that the judgment of a justice shall be a lien on the realty; and that would put the title to real estate in danger. We should be slow to make these radical changes. We were now accommodated to the present jurisdiction, and his people were satisfied with it.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew. The reasons assigned here, and the course taken against extending the jurisdiction of the magistrates, were something like that in the Senate four years ago against the interest bill. There were a few bankers In the State, and it was supposed they would be opposed to that bill, but they came down and promised us, if we could get it through the House, they would support it there. We passed it and sent it to them; but the last man of them finally voted against it. An increase of jurisdiction would command better talents for justices of the peace.
Mr. STOTSENBERG replied to the objections to the enlargement of this jurisdiction. Just as grave questions of law were likely to be raised in actions involving less than $100 as in those involving a greater amount. It was a question affecting the interests of the people: if it gives them facilities for collections, let them have it. As to the lien on real estate, the transcript could be taken and filed at once. It would relieve the dockets of the Circuit and Comman Pleas Courts.
Mr. ORR concurred in these views. He considered it would confer a great benefit on the people.
Mr. PARRETT. It was an experiment. There were, perhaps, good reasons both ways. It was plausible that a principle was the same, whether it involve $50 or $200. in the State of Ohio, three or four years ago, they gave justices jurisdiction to $300. Since that they had reduced it. But in Michigan, the justices had jurisdiction to the amount of $200, and it worked well; and they could send writs all over the country. The same thing obtained in New York.
Mr. WOODHULL. They had better chances for continuances, &c.
Mr. PARRETT. That was so. The question was not whether it would benefit lawyers as a class. If it was for the advantage of the people at large, he was for it. It was not by practice before justices that lawyers had their living. There they had their labor without a living. He did not know but it was best. As to the objection that the justice's judgment gave no lien on the realty, the transcript could be taken at once, as stated by Mr. Stotsenberg. Of course the plaintiff would be at perfect liberty still to take his case where he would. The bill could injure nobody; and it might not only facilitate collections, but call better qualified men to fill the justice's office. He inclined to the opinion that it would prove satisfactory in practice.
Mr. WOODHULL. The same rule of appeal applies before the justices, but the rules of pleading were not restricted.
Mr. PARRETT. There was nothing lost by that. The pleadings there were all in the head, and as plastic as dough.
Mr. VEATCH. If he really believed the interests of the country demanded it, he would page: 182[View Page 182] go for it, for he was very sure there was nothing in it that could injure lawyers as far as fees are concerned. He believed the title of the bill ought to be read thus: to increase the jurisdiction of justices and increase litigation. He differed with gentlemen, holding that this jurisdiction was limited to a certain amount because the justices have not sense to try causes. This was not the principle. He urged that a principle of law involving $100 could be just as easily decided as if it involved $5,000. You all know that justices of the peace, generally, are really incapable of entering up a judgment with that precision and exactness which would stand the tests. If the cause involves only $50 or $100, it would not justify the party in carrying it up. The judgment on the merits would remain there. But suppose you increase the amount to $500, then every defect in the proceedings before the justice would be carefully set out and carried up, and so litigation would be multiplied without end. Instead of circumscribing litigation and taking business out of the hands of the lawyers, you would have just the thing that would be giving them a great harvest. Now, the plain, practical question is here: Would not this bill increase the number and frequency of these cases before the justices ? If it would, then, instead of increasing it, the law should reduce the amount, and take all important causes to the higher courts, where they would be more carefully guarded. One gentleman says it is for the benefit of the debtor. It saves in fees of the higher courts, and in mileage. Then, to be consistent, you ought to give exclusive jurisdiction to the justices ; for if you do not, your remedy would not be complete. But it was claimed by another gentleman that it benefits both the debtor and the creditor-that it would operate beneficially both ways-a great measure, truly-so admirably fitted to everybody. But where will this measure operate in favor of the debtor class ? Unless you give exclusive jurisdiction to the justices, up to the amount fixed, you leave every plaintiff to go, if he will, to the circuit or the common pleas court. You do not benefit the debtor class at all, for you never knew a cause where the parties were friendly, that they did not accommodate the matter. If the creditor wants to save his neighbor costs, he will give him notice, and he will confess judgment before a justice; but if not, he will go where it suits his convenience best. But he was distinctly opposed to enlarging the jurisdiction for confessing judgment. He had seen more injustice and fraud practiced on that point than almost any other. For instance: a man is getting into a tight place, and wants to accommodate his friend; and he says to him, I am going to be sued; j come in here before this justice of the peace, and I will confess judgment on what I am owing you. And before the world knows it, there is a judgment and execution levied on ;all his property. He could not think the provision would work well, but ill, by giving occasion for fraud and injustice that would be taken advantage of.
Mr. ATKISSON. Couldn't a man now go into court and do the same ?
Mr. VEATCH. That would make no difference. There is evil in it. There was another objection ti the bill. All interference with old, settled customs was injurious. Whenever a thing is found to work well, it was a good rule to let it alone. He had often heard the cry, Legislate for the farming class, and keen the fees from the lawyers; and while they have been a great while working to that point every change that has been made has only brought up new causes of complaint. Look at the supreme court, piling up their reports year after year, and month after month, to the great expense of litigants. All this comes from those changes of the law professing to destroy litigation and make every man his own lawyer. The gentleman from Warren (made a lawyer by the constitution,) was right in his practice, never to charge anything. That which costs him nothing he should charge nothing for.
Mr. PACKARD. Instead of injuring the lawyers, it would benefit them. It was a fact that most cases exceeding $50 went now to the higher courts. Then what benefit was to come from raising that jurisdiction? It would seem that experience would teach us against this change. The office of justice of the peace went a begging. Men having a limited knowledge of the law did not want to hear their neighbors difficulties. The reason why the extended jurisdiction in Michigan was said to work evil, was because it was disregarded. They went to the higher courts with all their cases. This extension was not asked in his region. It would open a wide door to fraud and injustice.
Mr. CAMERON demanded the previous question, but withdrew for-
Mr. FRASIER, who explained, that by the term "constitutional" lawyer, he had intended to indicate, not those who have come recently into the profession, but those going about provoking petty litigations and practice for whisky.
Mr. HOLCOMB. It seemed an extraordinary thing to Mr. Veatch that this would operate well in two ways. It was true, however, that it would operate to the advantage of the creditor, in the case of the absconding debtor; and it would save costs to the debtor. But the gentleman said confession of judgment gave scope for frauds by preferment of creditors. That evil would not be increased by this bill.
Mr. CAMERON now insisted on his demand for the previous question, and, under its operation, the report was now concurred in-yeas 24, nays 63-as follows :
page: 183[View Page 183]YEAS- Messrs. Bingham, Branham, Burgess, Cason, Crain, Edson, Erwin, Fraley, Frasier, Gresham, Heffren, Howard, Jones of Tippecanoe, Knowlton, McClurg, Packard, Prosser, Smith of Miami, Thomas, Veatch, Williams, Veatch, Woods, and Mr. Speaker-24.
NAYS Messrs. Anderson, Atkisson, Boydston, Brett, Cameron, Campbell, Collins, Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Dashiel, Davis, Epperson, Feagler, Ferguson, Fisher, Fleming, Ford, Fordyce, Gifford, Gore, Hall, Harvey, Haworth, Hayes, Henricks, Kitchen, Lods, Lane, Lightner, McLean, Moorman, Moss, Mutz, Nebeker, Newman, Orr, Parret, Pitts, Polk, Prow, Ragan, Randall, Robbins, Roberts, Sherman, Sloan, Smith of Bartholomew, Stevenson, Stotsenberg, Trier, Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Warrum, Wells, Wilson, Woodruff-63.
The question recurred on the motion to re-commit to the Committee on Organization of Counts of Justice.
Mr. DAVIS proposed further to amend by striking out "$300," and inserting "$200;" and striking out " $500," and inserting "$300."
Mr. HEFFREN moved to recommit the bill, with instructions to inquire into the expediency of increasing the justices' and constables' bonds to $3,000 each.
Mr. JONES, of Tippecanoe. That was in the bill now.
Mr. FRASIER proposed to amend further, so as to give justices final jurisdiction in bastardy cases.
Mr. ROBBINS proposed $400 jurisdiction on confession of judgment.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew, moved to lay Mr. Davis's amendment on the table.
Mr. CAMERON moved to lay all the amendments on the table.
The House refused to table, by yeas 35, nays 48.
Mr. NEBEKER proposed to double the present measure of the justices' and constables' bonds.
Mr. HOLCOMB moved, ineffectually, to refer the bill to the Committee on County and Township Business, with instructions to amend, so as to authorize justices of the peace to fine and imprison for contempt.
The question again recurred on the motion to recommit to the Committee on Organization of Courts.
Mr. FISHER hoped it would not go back. We have spent time enough on it-no doubt the minds of gentlemen were made up. Without instructions, we could expect nothing but the same report again from the same committee.
The House refused to recommit: and then-
On motion of Mr. GRESHAM, the bill and Mr. Combs's amendment were referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges, with the following further propositions to amend :
By Mr. POLK, so as to authorize but one justice to each civil township of 1,500 inhabitants.
By GRESHAM, to confer on the justices concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of record in all cases civil and criminal.
By Mr. RAGAN, to insert at the words "justices of the peace," these words: "Mayors of towns and cities."
By Mr. GRESHAM, to make the decisions of justices, &c., final.
Mr. STOTSENBERG made an ineffectual motion to call up the report of the Committee of Thirteen.
REPORTS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON COUNTY AND TOWNSHIP BUSINESS.
Mr. FRASIER, [chairman] returned the petition of sundry citizens of Steuben county for the abolishment of a county treasurer's office, and for the election of township and city tax collectors:
Also, the resolution proposing that all moneys coming into the hands of supervisors shall be paid to the lowest bidder for road work :
Also, the resolution for the repeal of the county treasurer to visit the precincts for tax gathering:
Also, the resolution for expanding the road tax in the district where collected: with the expression of opinion that legislation on these several subjects is inexpedient, and thai the papers lie on the table.
The reports were severally concurred in.
NEW BILLS
Of the following titles were passed to the second reading:
Mr. FRASIER: [173] Supplemental to the acts of March 2, '55, and December 26, '58 for the re-location of county seats.
Mr. WILLIAMS: [174] To authorize the organization of Insurance Companies in the State of Indiana.
Mr. VEATCH: [175] To authorize the killing of dogs that are found wandering away from their owners, providing for licensing dogs in cities and towns, &c., and prescribing duties of township assessors in certain cases.
Mr. ANDERSON: [176] To license dogs, and providing for the payment of damages sustained on account of maiming and killing sheep by dogs.
Mr. MOSS: [177] To regulate the remission of fines and forfeitures, and to repeal all laws conflicting with this act.
Mr. KENDRICK: [178] To amend sections 2, 3, and 14 of the act of March 1, 1859, amendatory of the General City Corporation law of March 5, 1857.
Mr. WOODS: [179] Regarding estrays and articles adrift, and repealing all laws in conflict with this act.
Mr. COOPRIDER: [180] To amend section 13 of the act of January 12. 1852, to provide againt the consequences of lost books, papers, &c., to restore lost papers and provide for the perpetuation of testimony.
Mr. ORR: [181] To amend the 17th section of the justices act of June 9. 1852, defining their power and duties in civil cases.
Mr. PARRETT: [182] To amend sections 1 and 3 of the act in relation to public officers, &c., approved March 5, 1859.
Mr. FRASIER: [183] To create the 17th page: 184[View Page 184] Judicial District; to provide for the election of a Judge; to fix the time of holding its terms; to provide for the election of a Prosecutor for the 10th Circuit, &c. [The district to be composed of the counties of Kosciusko, Elkhart, Lagrange, Steuben, Noble and De Kalb.]
Mr. JONES of Tippecanoc: [184] Providing for the jurisdiction of the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts, in case of forfeited recognizances, &c.
Mr. HENRICKS: [185] To provide for numbering the several districts of the Court of Common Pleas in the State of Indiana.
THE STATE PRINTING.
Mr. HEFFREN submitted a joint resolution [30] rehearsing that the State Printer was elected under a joint resolution, subject to removal, and that there is a responsible proposer to do the public printing 25 per cent, below the present legal rates, c., and declaring the office vacant, and giving the printing for the State to Thomas S: Goodwin, "at 25 per cent, discount on the prices now allowed by law, until some other arrangements are made for the same; provided he gives satisfactory bond and security for the prompt and faithful execution, under the restrictions and requirements now provided by the laws on public printing."
Mr. BUNDY moved to refer it to the Select Committee on Printing.
Mr. HEFEREN moved to lay that motion on the table.
Mr. CAMERON demanded a call of the House; and-
Pending proceedings in the call-
Ths House adjourned.
