IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, January 30, 1867.The Senate met at 2 o'clock, P. M.
On motion of Mr. GIFFORD the reading, of yesterday's journal was dispensed with.
REVISION OF THE STATUTES.
The PRESIDENT announced the special: order to be the consideration of the report of the Judiciary Committee recommending; the indefinite postponement of Mr. Wol-cott's bill [S. 19] to provide for a revision and consolidation of the statutes.
Mr. WOLCOTT. Since I have been a resident of the State of Indiana at various times I have had some occasion to examine the laws, and I find them in great confusion by reason of the many amendments engrafted upon the acts in part; and, in part owing to the newness of the Constitution, decisions of courts have been necessary to reconcile their provisions one with another. Having observed this I have frequently; conversed with various lawyers of eminence in this State on the subject,, and have taken their advice upon the propriety of introducing this bill. I have taken especial pains to consult the judges of the Supreme and Circuit Courts upon its propriety, and each and every one of them confirm the impression I had myself conceived. They all told me it was a measure of the greatest importance both in an economical point of view and for the interests of the State. Inasmuch as the bill has been reported upon adversely by the Committee, I presume it would not be out of place to make some remarks upon its merits. It is the duty of the State to put the laws in such shape that every man may know what they are. In the present shape none but professional men can know what he law is. There are 279 amendatory acts, and in addition to that there are over 2,000' decisions explaining and construing these laws. Under that state of things no ordinary man can obtain a perfect knowledge of the law. Our judicial tribunals of an inferior character are incapable of administering the laws with the present imperfect means of knowing what the law is. By revising, page: 124[View Page 124] simplifying, arranging and expunging what is obsolete, all this could be made simple and easily understood. This has been done in other States. But we are met with the question of expenses, and we are told that the taxes are high, and it is impolitic to impose any new burdens on the people by way of taxation. I believe the question of expense in this instance to be badly taken. When the laws were revised before, 10,000 copies were sold the first year. Since that time we have increased in population sufficient to warrant us in the belief that there would be no less than 15,000 copies of the revision contemplated by the bill sold in the first year; and the State reserving the copyright, or retaining one dollar on every copy sold, would thereby save enough to pay the expense of the revision. Bat every session of the Legislature, the State is called upon to distribute a copy of the statutes to each member - it is absolutely necessary that legislators should know what the law is and the statutes cost the State at the wholesale price $10 per copy. A revision of the laws would reduce the size of the volume about one-half, and they would not cost to exceed $5 each. But there is still another consideration: nearly all the bills introduced are amendatory. I asked sthe Secretary the other day what proportion of the bills introduced were original and what amendatory, and he told me ; about two-thirds were amendatory. These bills amendatory are introduced more rfrom the confused state of the laws than anything else. Reports from Committees show that the subject of many bills introduced are already provided for by existing laws, and the reason they are introduced is because members have not taken the pains to run through with the books in which the statutes are contained. If two-thirds of the bills introduced are of an amendatory character, the reading, reference to Committees, and the consideration of the reports of Committees on those bills must take up at least one-fifth of the whole time of the session; and that being the case, computing the whole expenses of the session at $75,000, this class of legislation alone is a cost to the State of $15,000 each session, which sum would be saved by properly classified statutes such as this bill now under consideration contemplates.
Mr. BENNETT agreed with the Senator[Mr. Wolcott] in every word he had said, and should vote for the bill. The Committee believed this bill was a good one too, but on the ground of expense they recommended its indefinite postponement; and in making that report himself, for the Committee, he thought it not worth while to enter objections at that time.
Mr. CULLEN, while having great confidence in the ability of the Senator from White, [Mr. Wolcott] in a financial point of view, was not willing to vote for the bill at the present time. It is but recently the two gentlemen of ability undertook the work contemplated in the bill on their own responsibility, and they made a good thing of it. Under this bill the revision would cost the State enormously - it would take two years or more to accomplish it - and the interest of the people at large would not be benefitted by it; on the contrary the bill would be considered emphatically a laywer's bill. As heretofore, individual enterprise could undertake this revision with fair prospect of ample remuneration. Then again, the people are not asking for this bill - it can do them no good and would be involving the State in great expense at a time when every Senator should be looking carefully to the question of taxation.
Mr. OYLER thought the gentleman from Rush [Mr. Cullen] while generally right was on the wrong track this time. The Senator says Gavin & Hord have made money out of their revision of the statutes; that any firm can do the same thing again and yet avers it would be an enormous at: almost interminable bill of expense to the State. The bill provides for more than a revision in the fact that it makes it incumbent upon the revisors to suggest recommendations for codification or amendment of the laws and to submit such a report to the Legislature. The Senator's argument was based on the idea that the bill provides simply for a revision of the statues. He contended there was a necessity for a revision, and that the benefits arising therefrom would be fully commensurate with its cost and consequently he favored the passage of the bill. Its passage would not add one dollar to any man's taxes.
Mr. STEIN was decidedly in favor of this bill because a necessity exists for the revision of the statues; and believing in its necessity, he proceeded to show that his premises were well founded. Amendment is added to amendment until the laws become a stupendeous mass of confused matter almost beyond the comprehension of the most astute lawyer. The project now is to have a clean sltae - to wipe from our statues all obsolete acts. It should be termed a people's bill, and not a lawyer's bill. The people of Indiana are a statute-reading people, and desire facilities for reference. The question of expense was one he did not fear to face. Were the commissioners to sit the whole year long, it would cost each individual but three cents each. The objection to private parties undertaking this job is that such a work would be devoid of page: 125[View Page 125] official sanction; nor could they do it as well as commissioners appointed by the State.
Mr. HANNA gave notice of two amendments, which would be propsed at the proper time, viz: one limiting the time of these commissioners to six months, and the other that they shall report their code at the next session of the Legislature. The tax to be paid by the people of Indiana next year will amount to $40,000,000, which is about half the amount it took to support the whole Government of the United State previous to the late civil war. The question of taxation is a gigantic question and should be carefully taken into account, and this committee should have no discretionary power to entail expenses upon the State.
Mr. NILES regretted feeling almost obliged submit a few remarks, but as there was no gentleman apparently disposed to speak in favor of what was supposed to be the opinion of the Judiciary Committee, it perhaps devolved upon him as a duty. The question has been argued as if it was almost exclusively one of expense, and it has been submitted to the Senate as if that was the ground on which the committee recommended the indefinite postponement of the bill. He admitted that was one of the considerations with him, but it was the least of all considerations. The system of codifying laws has proved valuable to society, but it has not been gone into lightly. He referred at length to the history of codifying the laws, beginning with the Justinian code and tracing it down to the present time. The New York code is published by private enterprise and makes three large volumes, equal in size to either of Gavin & Hord's volumes; and how can codifyers reduce our statutes in one small volume, as some Senator has suggested? The moment we undertake to make new statutes we will meet with innumerable difficulties.
Mr. CULLEN insisted that this bill was unnecessary - there is no necessity for it whatever. We have the statutes now in two volumes, well indexed and so arranged that any man can find any law in force in 1852, and any law passed from that time down to 1863; and the bill under consideration proposes to reprint these two volumes with no addition except the acts of 1865 and those of the present session - and that too, at an extraordinary expense. Our people are feeling the burden of taxation now; and as it was the last feather that woke the camel's back we had better be careful how we add to the burden. Seventy-five to one hundred thousand dollars will not cover the expense that would accrue under the operations of this bill. Until our financial troubles are arranged let us go slow on all these questions of expense. Mr. BELLAMY argued for the passage of the bill, reviewing arguments that have been advanced against it, and contending that many of them were conclusive evidence of the practicability of this proposition for a revision of the statutes.
Mr. BENNETT said that in this discussion good lawyers have differed about what is contained in our two volumes of the statutes, and he proceeded to show that the discussion itself is an argument for the passage of the bill.
Mr. RICE finds but one member of the Judiciary Committee beside himself rising in defence of the action of the committee in recommending indefinite postponement of this bill. The committee made that report because they saw no necessity for such a bill. This question of a revision of the statutes has not been canvassed by the people - nor indeed asked for by any considerable portion of them; for Gavin & Hord's volumes satisfy the people in that line.
Mr. VAWTER demanded the previous question.
It was seconded by the Senate.
Mr. WOLCOTT, by consent, had leave to close the debate. As a Senator, one half of his time was taken up in the investigation of laws on subjects upon which he was of called to act. It would require one year's work for the revision, and the expense would be within $15,000, which could be saved by retaining for the State a fee of $1 on each volume sold, to say nothing of the fact that one fifth of the time of the Legislature would be saved by the convenience of the revision, which in itself would cover the cost.
The main question was ordered.
The report of the Judiciary Committee, recommending the indefinite postponement of the bill, was then concurred in by yeas 32, nays 14.
BANK OF THE STATE.
The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the report of the Bank of the State and branches, which was referred to the Committee on Banks.
PETITIONS.
Mr. KINLEY presented a petition on the subject of a Soldiers' Home, which was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges without reading. Also, a petition signed by certain citizens of Indianapolis, on the subject of the education of colored children; which was referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. SMITH presented a petition from certain citizens of Huntington county, praying for the passage of a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors unless on the petition of a majority of the voters page: 126[View Page 126] of the neighborhood; which was referred to the Committee on Temperance.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES
Were made and concurred in, to wit:
From the Judiciary Committee -by Mr. NILES returning the bill [H. R. 8] amending section 99 of the General Practice Act, with an amendment. Also, Mr. Carson's bill [S. 105] authorizing Criminal Courts in all counties of 8,000 inhabitants. By Mr. RICE, returning Mr. Niles' Common Pleas Clerks item bill [S. 118.] By Mr. MASON, on Mr. Niles' misdemeaner bill [S. 120] recommending passage. By Mr. BENNETT, on Mr. Hanna's bill [S. 122] regulating the practice of dentistry, recommending that it lie on the table. Also his witness bill [S. 29] without distinction of color or blood, recommending its passage.
Mr. MASON submitted a minority report on the same bill, recommending its indefinite postponement, because it would have a tendency to thwart the ends of justice.
Mr. BENNETT. Precisely the same bill passed last session, only that bill had a proviso which is left out in this - the present bill goes upon the ground that there is no difference between a constitutional negro and an unconstitutional negro on the subject of testimony.
Mr. OYLER moved to concur in the majority report.
Mr. HANNA moved ineffectually - yeas 16, nays 28to lay the motion to concur on the table.
The Senate then concurred in the report of the majority of the committee by yeas 28, nays 16 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Bellamy, Bennett, Bonham, Brown, Cason, Church, Cravens, Cullen, Houghton, Hyatt, Jaquess, Kinley. Lewis, Milligan, Niles, Noyes, Oyler, Parrish, Reagan, Reynolds, Rice, Richmond, Robinson, Stein, Terry, Thompson, Ward and Wolcott - 28.
NAYS - Messrs. Barker, Carson, English, Gifford, Hanna, Huey, Huffman, Humphreys, Lee, Mason, Newlin, Smith, Staggs, Taggart, Turner and Vawter - 16.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for the third reading.
From the Judiciary Committee - Mr. RICE returned Mr. Houghton's bill [S. 88] requiring parties who institute suits for divorce or slander to give security for costs, recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. HOUGHTON explained that this bill was not introduced for the purpose of securing costs to officers of courts, but for the purpose of preventing litigation. He spoke in favor of the passage of the bill, and hoped the report of the Committee would not be concurred in.
Mr. OYLER insisted that the bill was calculated to do a great deal of injury, that it was unconstitutional, &c.
The report of the Committee was concurred in.
From the Committee on Education - By Mr. KINLEY, returning Mr. Carson's bill [S. 109] amending section 5 of the common school act. recommending its passage ; also, on Mr. Cason's [S. 107] to levy a special school tax. recommending that it be laid on the table - another bill on the same subject being preferred; also returning a petition praying that a School Board be created in each county of the State, recommending that the further consideration of the subject be indefinitely postponed.
From the Committee on Corporations - By Mr. CARSON, in obedience to a resolution requiring the committee to suggest amendments to the general law for the incorporation of cities. On motion by Mr. RICHMOND the report was concurred in without reading. By Mr. CRAVENS, on Mr. Thompson's bill, [S.119] amending the street railroad act. By Mr. CULLEN, on the Preacher's Aid Society bill [H. R. 2], recommending passage. He made an ineffectual motion to read the bill the second time now.
From the Committee on Claims - By Mr, NOYES, in favor of allowing Henry C. Guffin $5 for one day's service as clerk at the organization of the Senate: and in favor of Patrick Brennan $12 for work at the extra session of 1865: recommending their reference to the Judiciary Committee.
From the Committee on Organization of Courts - By Mr. OYLER, on Mr. Richmond's [S. 39 and 49] and Mr. Bonham's [S. 42] judicial circuit bills, recommending the adding of Henry and Hancock to No. 40, taking those counties from No, 42 and inserting Madison, Hamilton, Tipton and Howard in lieu, and the indefinite postponement of No. 39.
The question being on concurrence in the first report.
Mr. RICHMOND thought these a strange series of reports. Senators who live in the portion of country referred to have introduced bills which suit the condition of their constituents and the courts in the counties they represent, and which interests their people and theirs alone, yet this Committee take the matter in their own hands, not knowing the condition of affairs, and pretend to say what they want. From the reading at the clerk's desk, he could not understand what situation it places his own counties in; did not think the Senate could act advisedly now, and objected to the reports being adopted. He hoped the Senate would allow these reports to be referred to a Committee composed of Senators from to counties interested.
Mr. OYLER. The committee has before it in the examination of this question a number of citizens from the districts interested, and as far as the committee could learn a large majority from that district are opposed to the bills as originally introduced. The Senator says this is a logical matter, but we all know that Circuit Judges are paid out of the State Treasury, and consequently the balance of the State has something to do with it.
Mr. ROBINSON showed a necessity for a new circuit and for more time for court terms. It is a mistake to regulate litigation by population. The court could not try the business in Madison county alone in two months. He argued in favor of the bills introduced by the Senator from Howard, [Mr. Richmond]
Mr. BEMNETT moved that the bills be referred to a committee consisting of Sen- page: 127[View Page 127] ators representing counties interested in the at the proposed change.
Mr. BONHAM hoped the motion would prevail. Senators residing in other parts of the State do not know our wants. The time for the terms of the courts as fixed by the committee would perhaps conflict with some of our other court business he demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by 25 Senators.
Mr. BELLAMY The Judge of the 13th Judicial Circuit objects to having any counties taken off from his circuit - he would rather have more added. The Judge in one of the districts will have 28 weeks, and the Judge in the other 30 weeks of service under these series of bills. He objected to he taxation of his constituents for the purpose of creating another judicial circuit.
The main question was ordered.
The motion to refer was then agreed to by yeas 37, nays 5.
ABSENCE.
Mr. who was compelled by business to leave the city for the balance of the week.
Mr. Huffman was also granted leave of absence till Monday, on account of domestie affliction.
Mr. REAGAN from the select committee thereon reported mileage due each Senator.
Mr. MILLIGAN and Mr. ROBINSON asked and obtained leave to record their votes in favor of the passage of the bill [S. 7] to repeal an act entitled An Act to enforce the Xlllth Article of the Constitution.
Mr. CRAVENS, by consent, from the Select Committee on Public Buildings, made a report recommending the adoption of a resolution authorizing the Auditor of State to contract with W. P. & E. R. Gallup for a ten years lease of their building on the southeast corner of Tennessee and Market streets, at a rent not to exceed $4,500 per annum; and authorizing the removal of the State offices thereto, at the earliest practical period.
On motion by Mr. CULLEN, the report was made the special order for 3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
And then the Senate adjourned.
