HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, February 23, 1861.PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. STOTSENBERG presented petitions of 77 citizens of Indiana, of Floyd county, 33 citizens of Pulaski county, and 133 citizens of Boone county, without respect to party, asking the General Assembly to instruct the commissioners to the Washington convention appointed by the Governor, to co-operate with the friends of compromise on the basis of the Crittenden propositions, or some other basis equally fair and honorable; and that our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to support some compromise on that or a like basis.
Mr. POLK, Mr. JENKINSON, and Mr. ROBERTS presented similar petitions numerously signed; which were severally referred to the Committee of Thirteen.
Mr. ROBERTS also presented the resolutions of a Union meeting held in Chesterfield, Sparks Township, in the county of Dearborn, A. Smith, chairman, and T. Alexander, secretary, expressive, he said, not only of the feeling of the people of said township and county, but of the people of the whole fourth Congressional district, with reference to the support of the Constitution and the enforcement of the laws. It was referred to the Committee of Thirteen.
Mr. BRANHAM presented a memorial, setting forth claims, which was referred without reading to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. EDSON presented a petition for the protection of fences from the invasions of hunters: which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
page: 274[View Page 274]Mr. DOBBINS presented the petition of J. B. Beaver, and over 700 others, citizens of Martin county, for relief of Thomas Holbert, Treasurer of Martin county, from the replacement of $2,600, stolen from the county treassury safe on the night of the 12th of last December.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a remonstrance of sundry citizens of Martin Co., against such relief.
Mr. DOBBINS said, in reply to the statement in the remonstrance, that the treasury safe was blown open with powder; that a powder flask was found in the office next morning, similar to one which had been found in Warrick county ; that suspicions rested on certain parties in Dover Hill in connection with this robbery, who were known to be in correspondence with suspicious persons in Warrick, and it was thought that proper diligence would lead to the detection of the guilty. Mr. Holbert was an honest man, as the petition he had presented abundantly attested, and as the Speaker himself could also testify. He had been twice elected treasurer of Martin county. He had deposited the county money where the Commissioners had directed him, &c. He moved that the petition and remonstrance be referred to the Committee on Claims, and that a statement of the funds abstracted, which he sent up, might go along with the petition. They were so referred.
Mr. FRASIER stated that he did not a ask for leave of absence, as reported in this paper yesterday.
Mr. TURNER submitted a resolution directing the Clerk of the House to write immediately to the Clerks of the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts throughout the State, and ascertain how many cases have been docketed at each term for 1859, 1860, and 1861, distinguishing between civil and criminal cases, and guardianship, &c. He said this information was necessary to decide upon the question of the application for an increase of compensation for the clerks.
Mr. Stotsenberg, Mr. Bundy, and Mr. Fisher considered that it would be impossible to get responses in time, &c.
The resolution was rejected.
Leave of absence, on, account of sickness, was granted to Messrs. Lods, Brett, Prosser, and Ferguson.
COMMON PLEAS JURY.
Mr. EDSON. from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Cameron's bill [58] to repeal the act of last session to amend section 42 of the Common Pleas act of 1853, reporting legislation inexpedient.
Mr. CAMERON. This bill was to repeal the act by which we cannot have a jury in the Common Pleas till the third day of the term. This was especially inconvenient since the Common Pleas have jurisdiction of felony cases. In the smaller counties they always wanted a jury, and the probate business could be done whilst the jury might be out. The present law worked hardships in almost all the counties. The extra expense of a jury from the first day in the larger counties would not be so much as the expense of delays for want of a jury in the smaller counties. He did not know but the success of the bill might operate against the interests of the lawyers' &c. He had two bills on this change of the law, which were connected and dependent one upon the other.
Mr. EDSON replied, that there should be some time set apart in the Common Pleas for probate business. It was for that business principally that the Court was organized.
Mr. CASON said the Committee were unanimous in this report. It was to save expense that the jury was not called on the first and second days. Whilst the Court would be occupied with making up cases and issues in probate, the jury would have nothing to do.
The report was concurred in.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the W'arden and Physician of the Jeffersonville Prison, asking for legislation to authorize the transfer of insane prisoners to the State Asylum; which was referred to the Committee on the Penitentiary.
INTEREST LAW.
Mr. BUNDY, from, the Judiciary Committee returned the Committee's bill [84] concerning interest on money, with an amendment of the 10th section, repealing the 51st section of the Misdemeanor act of 1852. The Committee say that they have never seen a case of prosecution for usury which did not originate in spite. The amendment will harmonize the law. He said the Committee had endeavored to carry out the wishes of the House.
Mr. FRASIER, Did the bill provide that the judgment should bear the rate of interest in the contract ?
Mr. BUNDY. It was so understood by the Committee.
Mr. PARRETT. It should read: "Shall re-cover the principal with legal interest"deducting the illegal interest where usury is plead.
Mr. BUNDY. That is in the bill.
Mr. PARRETT. It was not so in the last clause.
The House acquiesced, and it was so amended.
Mr. FRASIER proposed to amend the clause in the 3d section as to judgments, by inserting, "interest not exceeding six per cent."
Mr. HEFFREN. This was obviously the wrong time to meddle with this matter. It would compel every man indebted to pay ten per cent. Who paid this ten per cent? It came from the laborers, the men of toil. No interest was paid but what was paid by the labor of the country. It was adding two-thirds to the burdens of usury already paid. It was a bill to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.
