IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, February 8,1861.On motion by Mr. MURRAY, the reading of the journal was dispensed with.
Mr. O'BRIEN presented a petition, which was referred to the Committee on Corporations without reading.
QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS.
Mr. WHITE, from the Committee on Elections, returned Mr. Landers' bill, S. 47-see pages 63, 96 and 97 of these Reports, recommending passage, with an amendment requiring a voter to reside in the State six months preceding an election, and not less than thirty days in a township or ward, in all elections except the April election ; for that, leaving the law as it now stands.
Mr. CARNAHAN. That is worse than though it operated the other way. It is in the fall season that young men who work out and labor near the township lines, change their residence more often than in the spring of the year, and I am opposed to the amendment on that ground.
Mr. LANDERS. The amendment is not in accordance with my notions, although I consented to it. I differ with the Senator from Posey: I think the moving generally takes place in the spring, and in the fall there is but little emigration except for the purpose of carrying elections. We cannot expect to make a law that will meet every case.
Mr. BLAIR. Any bill that is designed to protect the purity of the ballot-box should protect the April election as well as all others: for it is at that election men are chosen who control the ballot-box at every other election. There is a bill which I introduced, containing several other provisions with regard to conducting elections, and I think it proper that these two bills should be got together, in order that the Committee may make up a bill which will as effectually protect the ballot-box as possible. I move to re-commit the bill, with the pending amendments, to the Judiciary Committee.
The motion was agreed to.
REPORTS FROM THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
By Mr. STUDABAKER: Returning Mr. Dickinson's bill, S. 25-see page 30-with an amendment, recommending passage.
By Mr. SLACK : Returning a resolution inquiring by what right the darn across the Calumet river, at Blue Island, in the State of Illinois, is maintained: reporting that the question submitted is one of intricacy, that the Committee have not the time nor means to investigate the subject satisfactorily, and recommend that the subject matter of the resolution be referred to the Attorney General, whose opinion thereon will no doubt be satisfactory and conclusive.
By Mr. CRAVEN: Returning Mr. Line's bill, S. 54-see page 69-recommending passage, with an amendment that no allowance be made only upon a claim filed, accompanied with a certificate of the clerk of the court, that the convicted party is insolvent; and an additional section that such attorney shall receive no compensation except as provided in this act, and on failure to appear, shall receive no fees, and the court or justice shall appoint a substitute, and that all other instructions be laid page: 193[View Page 193] upon the table. Also, returning Mr. Wilson's bill S. 42-see page 30-recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. RAY, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts, returned Mr. Conley's bill S. 42-see page 69, recommending indefinite postponement.
Which reports were severally concurred in
COURTS OF CONCILIATION.
Mr. CLAYPOOL, from the Committee on Organization of Courts returned Mr. Slack's bill [S. 2-see page 12] recommending passage.
Mr. MARCH. This bill proposes to repeal an act which has been upon the statute books since 1852. An attempt has been made to repeal it at every session since, and at every session it has failed. The object of that statute is to prevent litigation, and in these times when we are talking about compromise and peace I trust we will set an example at home upon a little question like this.
Mr. RAY. I pronounce the whole provision a humbug and sham; it was so from the be-ginning, and is so up to this time. It never was a provision that promoted the peace and harmony of society, nor is it intended to cut off in any degree litigation or the fees of attorneys, but instead of being promotive of right and peace, it amounts to a denial of justice. I have never known an instance where a mertorious case was compromised in this way. It is a regular star-chamber performance.
[A message from the House announced the passage of the Cravens bill [S. 74] to fix the time of holding the circuit courts in the seventh judicial circuit.]
Mr. CLAYPOOL. This is an importation from the Yankee land, and is to be avoided. You make the court of Common Pleas the purchased lawyer of both parties-a regular monkey nibbling the cheese upon both sides. In my district, no case has been compromised under this statute; it simply enables parties to drag individuals before the court, and by a little closed-door palavar, send them out with ft five dollar bill in the pocket of the judge, and malignant feelings rankling in their bosoms.
Mr. MURRAY. It is enough for me to know, as a Senator on this floor, that that law was placed upon the statute-books for the pur pose of keeping out litigation from the courts. Have you a single petition coming from the people asking its repeal? I never heard of such a thing. I think it is just as convenient for parties to come before the court of conciliation, and there litigate from court to court through a term of years. Lawyers have an interest in this matter, or they would not be in favor, year after year, of repealing the law. I hope this Legislature will imitate past Legislatures, and vote down this bill.
Mr. MARCH. If the Senator from Fayette ever had the benefit of a Yankee school education under a birch stick, he would have learned that there never was a court in that country. I venture that if a vote of the people could be taken, it would be the voice of ninety-nine out of every hundred. Let it stand. It is the break-water to litigation. I look upon it as the worthiest feature upon our statue books. I think it holds out the banner of peace.
Mr. JOHNSON. Whenever I think a law is an injudicious one, I shall vote to repeal it, but whenever I think a law acts beneficially, I shall vote against its repeal. In my own county but one case has come within the scope of this law, but I know of several cases that have been settled by it, where they might have been litigated for years. I shall vote against the repeal of the law.
Mr. LANDERS. I am convinced of the propriety of still retaining the law. I see no necessity for its repeal, I have heard no complaint in my section of country, therefore I am inclined to vote against the report. While a law is working well, there is no necessity for its repeal.
Mr. SLACK. I cannot see why Senators will vote against concurring in this report when the universal testimony, almost of any one who has any experience with reference to the workings of this law, are averse thereto. There is not a practicing attorney on this floor who will say any good ever came from this law except the Senator from Delaware whose bantling it is. I hope the law will be unconditionally repealed, for no good can come out of it.
Mr. FERGUSON. If we undertake to suppress all humbugs, we have taken upon ourselves an endless task. Humbuggery may get into the legislative halls as well as into courts of conciliation. If this court prevents one law suit out of ten, I consider it has served -a useful purpose. I take it the law does not work injustice enough-I cannot say it works injustice to all-it cannot be so injudicious a law as to require repeal. I shall therefore vote against the repeal of this law.
Mr. WOLFE. When this law for the establishment of courts of conciliation in the State of Indiana was first enacted, I had but a single objection to it, and that objection has increased somewhat. The only objection I had was in regard to the fact that it permitted sharp, shrewd, calculating men to have an advantage over a plain common man. We all know however honest a judge may be, he must decide upon a case according to the facts as they are related, and a sharp man can always get the advantage of a plain common man in making a statement. I am not satisfied with an amendment which would confer such favor upon clerks of courts. The objection I think is sufficient to warrant me in sustaining the report of the committee.
The Senate refused to concur in tho committee report.
Mr. STUDABAKER. I move to recommit page: 194[View Page 194] with instructions to so amend the bill as to repeal the 10th section of the act constituting the court of conciliation. I am willing to compromise this matter by not compelling parties to go into it. My knowledge of the court is that it is about as much humbug as anything else, and a large share of cases taken there are without any cause that would justify a litigation. If the 10th section was repealed they would not think of going into court to litigate such matters as that, and since the common pleas districts are so large it will be inconvenient to get a judge to hold such courts.
Mr. MARCH. The Senator's proposition nullifies the law without stating it 'on its face. It is a very adroit move to throw dust into the eyes of gentlemen and get it voted down.
On motion by Mr. CARNAHAN, the bill and pending amendments were indefinitely postponed-yeas 22, nays 17.-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Bearss, Beeson, Carnahan, Conley, Ferguson of Hamilton, Hull, Johnson, Jones, Landers, March, Miller, Murray, Odell, Robinson, Shields, Steele, Stone, Teegarden, Turner, White, and Williams-22
NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Berry, Blair, Claypool, Conner, Craven of Madison, Dickinson, Grubb, Line, Lomax, Newcomb, Eay, Shoulders, Slack, Studabaker, Wilson, and Wolfe-17.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
By Mr. CONNER: Organization of Courts-returning a resolution inquiring into the expediency of abolishing the grand jury system, with a report that no further legislation is necessary.
By Mr. DICKINSON: Same-returning a resolution, inquiring into the expediency of abolishing courts of common pleas, and establishing a surrogate system for probate business, recommending that it be indefinitely postponed.
By Mr. HULL: Roads-returning Mr. Lo-Lomax's bill, S. 27-see page 30-recommending that it lie on the table, as existing laws embrace its object.
Mr. BEESON : Agriculture-returning Mr. Conley's bill, S. 80-see page 93-recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. DICKINSON, from the Select Committee thereon, reported a bill [S. 148] to provide for the election of United States Senators, and defining the duties of certain officers thereto, which was read the first time.
Mr. STEELE, from the Lincoln Reception Committee, reported that the President elect would leave his home at eight o'clock next, Monday morning, arrive at the State Line at 12:30, arrive in Lafayette at 2:30, and arrive in this city at 5, by special trains all the way; and that they intend to publish a programme in the morning papers to be observed on that occasion.
Which reports were severally concurred in.
[Mr. JONES offered a resolution, which was adopted by consent, instructing the Judiciary Committee to inquire into the expediency of amending Mr. Landers' bill. [S. 47] so as to make betting on elections disqualify a voter.]
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following bills were introduced severally passed the first reading, without'objection :
By Mr. LINE: [149] To authorize superintendent or other person having charge of county asylums for the poor, to discharge in mates from the same on certain conditions; and to apprentice minors therein.
By Mr. CLAYPOOL: [150] To amend sections 4 and 7 of an act to provide for the election, fixing the compensation, and prescribing the duties of Attorney Generals of the State of Indiana; approved February 21, 1855.
By Mr. DICKINSON: [151] To amend an act approved March 5, 1859, to amend section 42 of an act to establish courts of common pleas, &c., approved May 14, 1852, so as to regulate the docket, and for the disposal of business thereof.
By Mr. DICKINSON: [152] To amend an act to provide for the return" of the jury for the common pleas court on the third day of the term, approved March 5 1859, so as the jury may be returned on the second day of the term.
By Mr. CARNAHAN: [153] For the relief of Catherine P. Whittlesy, and to vest in her certain real estate of John Liridsey, which has escheated to he State: rules suspended-yeas 24, nays 1-read the second time by title only, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
By Mr. TEEGARDEN : [154] To amend section 4 and repeal section 7 of an act concerning interest on money ; approved May 27, 1852.
By Mr. MILLER: [155] To amend an act defining felonies, and prescribing punishment therefor; approved May 10, 1852.
By Mr. RAY: [156] To regulate the descent and distribution of property of adopted children.
By Mr. MARCH : [157] To amend sections 1, 11 and 12 of an act to exempt property from sale in certain cases; approved February 17, 1852.
By Mr. GRUBB: [158] To amend section 1 of an act to concerning interest on money, approved May 27, 1S52, so it may be ten per cent, by written contract.
CLINCHING THE RULE FOE, BUT ONE SESSION A DAY.
Mr. MURRAY moved to re-consider the vote by which the resolution was adopted, providing for but one session of the Senate each day.
On motion by Mr. ANTHONY, the motion to re-consider was laid on the table.
POLL TAX FOR COUNTY PURPOSES.
Mr. Wolfe's bill [S. 57-see page 69 of these Reports]-being read the third time-
Mr. HAMILTON moved to re-commit, so that the tax shall not exceed 50 cents on the 100 dollars.
