JUSTICES OP THE PEACE.
Mr. McCLURG returned Mr. Moss's bill [80] to amend sections 8 and 10 of the justices' act of June 9,1852, with amendments, [extending the official bonds of justices of the peace to from $2,000 to $6,000, and extending their jurisdiction to $200 and $300 on confession of judgment]
The orginal bill, he said, was to enlarge the jurisdiction of justices of the peace to $300 and $400 on confession. The amendments re duce these amounts to $200 and $300. That, was the whole of the bill. It was discussed rather extensively the other day. The members of the committee-(to say nothing of their private opinion-) became satisfied that this enlargement of jurisdiction was a general public demand. He was satisfied that the people of his county wanted it. So. yielding to what they believed to be the wish of their constituents, they agreed to submit this report. They also looked at the question in a practical way. They considered that the Circuit Court sits but twice a year, with an interval of six months; that the Common Pleas Court sits but three times a year, with intervals of four months, and that the justices' jurisdiction was limited to $100. And that they thought, to save time and costs, it would not be too much to give creditors the advantage of getting judgment on sums under $300, by giving three days' notice.
Mr. Gresham and Mr. Bundy opposed, and Mr. Holman and Mr. Parrett supported, the bill, until-
Mr. McLEAN demand the previous question, and under its force the amendments were adopted.
On the question of the engrossment-
Mr. FRASIER proposed to amend, by a clause to abolish the Common Pleas.
Mr. VEATCH proposed to amendment, by a clause referring the duties of the Common Pleas to the Justices' Courts.
These were laid on the table.
Mr. NEBEKER, as a constitutional lawyer, was glad to see the lawyers here disagree on the propriety of this bill. It would give the people facilities for collecting with less costs.
Mr. CAMERON demanded the previous question, and, under its operation, the bill was ordered to be engrossed, by yeas 69, nays 18:
Mr. EDSON explaining, that he believed it would work injuriously, (but the people demanded it,) placing the legal fraternity in the same position with the Democratic party, and therefore he thought they had better succumb.
The SPEAKER would like to know of the gentleman whether he acknowledged that the Democratic party did now succumb ? [Laughter.]
Mr. WOODHULL (explaining,) said he represented farmers, and while he believed the bill would operate injuriously upon them, and promote his own interests, professionally, he would vote No.
On motion by Mr. NEBEKER, (the order of business being suspended for the purpose,) the bill was considered as engrossed and passed the third reading-yeas 69, nays 2-as follows :
YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Atkisson, Boydston, Brett, Bryan, Cameron, Campbell, Collins, of Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Dashiel, Davis, Dobbins, Edson, Epperson, Feagler, Ferguson, Fisher, Fleming, Ford, Fordyce, Fraley, Gifford, Gore, Hall, Harvey, Haworth, Hayes, Henricks, Holcomb, Hopkins, Horton, Hudson, Hurd, Jenkinson, Jones, of Wayne, Kendrick, Kitchen, Lods, Lane,
page: 200[View Page 200]Lightner, McClurg, McLean, Moss, Nebeker, Newman, Orr, Parrefct, Pitts, Polk, Prow, Ragan, Randall, Bobbins, Sherman, Sloan, Smith, of Bartholomew, Smith, of Miami, Stevenson, Stotsenberg, Trier, Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Warrum, Wells, Wilson, and Woodruff-69.
NAYS-Messrs. Bingham, Branham, Brucker, Bundy, Burgess, Cason, Collins, of Whitley, Crain, Erwin, Frasier, Gresham, Howard, Knowlton, Owens, Packard, Thomas, Veatch, Williams, Woodhull, Woods, and Mr. Speaker-21.
Mr. DOBBINS (explaining,) said that he did not think it would be for the advantage of the farming community, but was willing to yield to the demand here.
Mr. BUNDY proposed to amend the title of the bill, to read: "A bill to encourage litigation and increase the fees of lawyers."
Mr. PARRETT moved to lay the amendment on the table, but withdrew for a direct vote thereon, which stood-yeas 6, nays 84.So the bill passed the House of Repoesentatives.
Mr. ORR, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Edson's bill [135,] to amend the assessment act of 1852, so as to exempt from taxation the personal property of widows, when it does not exeeed in value $300, recommending its passage.
Mr. FRASIER would vote for it as just and expedient, but had not the slightest doubt that our labor would go for nothing; that it would be unconstitutional, and that it would be another machine to make litigations.
Mr. STOTSENBERG. Had it been before the Committee on the Judiciary?
Mr. VEATCH. They had reported in favor of it. He read the constitutional provision for exemptions from taxation.
Mr. ORR. It was under the word "charitable" that the bill was recommended. [Laughter.]
The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
