HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, February 16, 1867.The House met at 9 o'clock A. M.
On motion of Mr. SPENCER the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
ADJOURNMENT.
On the motion of Mr. ROSS, it was ordered that when the House adjourn to-day, it shall be till Monday at 2 o'clock P. M.
ABSENCE.
Mr. Ratliff, Mr. Crowe, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Daggy obtained leave of absence till next week.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. PRATHER presented a memorial of sundry citizens of Jennings county, asking indemnity for losses by the Morgan raid; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. MILLER presented the remonstrance of John Pettit against the passage of Mr. McClasky's bill, No. 216, for an act discharging the tax payers of Montgomery county, in the State of Indiana, from liability on the case of a judgment rendered in favor of the State against William H. Schooler, treasurer of said county for $38,441.69, with interest thereon, as it would work a great wrong both to the State and himself as acting attorney for the State in the case - his own claim for services being $8,000.
Mr. MILLER moved that the memorial be printed.
Mr. WRIGHT. It would be just as well to send it to the Committee on Ways and Means, that committee having the bill referred to.
Mr. WOODS said that the memorial was at fault as to a fact - as to whether the facts which released Schooler's securities were ever established by evidence.
Mr. MILLER. If the gentleman can prove a falsehood against Mr. Pettit, let him do it; not get up here and make charges vaguely. If Mr. Pettit knew these facts, he ought to have admitted them as an honest man. I do not know anything about this matter particularly; but I want the facts to appear, therefore I make the motion.
Mr. WOODS disclaimed all purpose to charge falsehood upon the petitioner.
Mr. CAMPBELL was opposed to printing any matter merely for the benefit of Mr. Pettit. He would not print anything but for the benefit of the House.
The motion to print was rejected.
And then the remonstrance was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
TEMPERANCE PETITIONS.
Mr. SHOOK, Mr. MILLER, Mr. STEWART, Mr. BLACK and Mr. McCARTHY presented petitions praying for the enactment of a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, except upon a petition of a majority of the legal voters of the town, township, or ward; which were severally referred to the Committee on Temperance.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. PEELLE, from the Committee on the Organizntion of Courts, returned Mr. Hopkins' bill [H. R. 300] to amend the Common Pleas Courts Act for the times of holding court in the counties of Vanderburgh, Warrick, Posey and Gibson, recommending its passage.
Mr. BISCHOF, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Ratliff's bill [H. R. 156] to amend sections 1, 10 and 14 of the Common School law - striking out the word "white," and providing for the transference of colored children for separate schools and colored taxation for their support - recommending its passage.
Mr. STACKHOUSE, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Montgomery's bill [H. R. 274] amending the 7th Section of the act providing for the election of clerks of the Circuit Court, and prescribing some of their duties, &c., &c.to secure unclaimed jury and witness fees and fines and forfeitures for the common school fund - recommending its passage.
Mr. RATLIFF, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Hartman's bill [H.R. 64] to repeal the act of December 20, 1865, amending section 35 of the Common School law - recommending that it be laid on the table, for the reason that a Senate bill contains the same provisions.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. WASON, from Committee on Education, returned the House bill with reference to the qualifications of teachers, recommending its passage.
Mr. RATLIFF, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Bird's bill [H. R. 102] to amend the act of December 20, 1865, to amend section 35 of the Common School law, prescribing that where school meetings designate additional branches to be taught in their schools, the teachers shall be examined as to their qualifications to teach such additional branches; reporting that the bill is unnecessary, for the page: 252[View Page 252] reason that the subject matter is embraced in another House bill.
The report was laid on the table.
Mr. COREY, from Committee on Education, returned Mr. Moore's bill [H. R. 210] to amend the act of March 6, 1865, so as to increase the school tax from twenty-five to fifty cents on the one hundred dollars worth of taxable property ; a majority of said Committee recommending its passage.
Mr. RATLIFF, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Wason's bill [H. R. 213] to amend sections 1 and 4 of the amendatory of the common school law, increasing the tax from 16 to 20 cents on each $100 of taxable property, for supporting common schools, and striking from the law the following words: "Provided, however, that the taxes aforesaid shall not be levied and collected from negroes or malattoes." Amends section 4 by adding the following: "A school trustree shall be triennially elected in each township to perform all the school duties now required of the township trustee by the school law. The term of office to begin and end with the first Wednesday after the first Monday in June," with an amendment striking out the 4th section; and when so amended the Committee recommend its passage.
Mr. SMITH, of Lagrange, from the Committee on Education, returned Mr. Mason's bill [H. R. 206] authorizing township trustees of incorporated towns and common councils of cities to levy a tax for school purposes - not exceeding 25 cents on the $100 valuation of taxable property, and 25 cents on each taxable poll; recommending its passage.
He also returned the House resolution for a uniform system of text books, reporting that further legislation on the subject is inexpedient.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. GREER, from a majority of the select committee thereon, returned Mr. Wilson's bill to provide for the improvement of highways and repeal conflicting laws, with an amendment, recommending its passage.
Mr. FOULKE, from the minority of the same committee, reported the opinion that the Legislature have the right to assess, &c.; that two cents is enough if we give a margin of twenty cents.
LOST STATUTES.
Mr. VAWTER submitted the following:
WHEREAS, The Committee on Fees and Salaries applied to the Clerk of this House for a statute, on Thursday evening, and said Clerk borrowed a copy for the use of said Committee, and said statute was taken or stolen from this House, for which the Clerk is personally liable; therefore -
Resolved, That the State Librarian be authorized to replace a set of statutes, in the place of the ones taken.
Mr. WHITE proposed to amend the resolution by adding these words: "and that the Librarian be authorized to replace the statutes stolen from the desk of Colonel Hays."
Mr. McFADIN said there were sundry instances of petty thieving here in the Hall and it might be well simply to recommend vigilance on the part of the officers in charge. He would move to strike out the word "stolen" and insert "lost" in lieu.
Mr. GEISENDORF moved to lay the subject on the table.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. RATLIFF. I move to amend by requesting the person that has these statutes to return them.
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman feom Grant [Mr. Ratliff] serve the notice?
Mr. WHITE. I move that the gentleman from Grant serve the notice.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Cass [Mr. McFadin].
Mr. WHITE accepted the amendment. Mr. GEISENDORF. I do not ask the House to indemnify me for my losses.
Mr. SABIN explained. The two volumes of the statutes mentioned in the resolution was placed on the Speaker's desk at the end where the journal clerk [Mr. Dormer] stands. The clerk took them and placed them in the recess under the Speaker's desk and behind the clerk's desk, and when he looked for them they were missing.
The resolution was rejected.
MASTER COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. BOBO introduced a bill [H. R. 306] for an act to authorize the reference of trials to Master Commissioners, and defining their duty in reference thereto. [The Master Commissioner shall be allowed three dollars for each case tried - the Court to review and confirm or set it aside in each case.] It was read the first time and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
A CLAIM.
Mr. BRUCKER submitted a claim, which, without reading, was referred to the Committee on Claims.
SECURITIES AS WITNESSES.
Mr. PEELE, (by request), introduced a bill [H. R. 307] for an act allowing securities in all cases to be witnesses where they are only securities. It was read the first time and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
ANIMALS AT LARGE.
Mr. ROSS introduced a bill [H. R. 308] for an act to affirm the common law rule as to animals running at large, and giving a right of action for injuries. [All animals page: 253[View Page 253] BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS. 253running at large, with the knowledge of the owner, shall be regarded as tresspassing animals, &c.] It was read the first time.
THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
Mr. GREER introduced a bill [H. R. 309] for an act regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors and the procuring of license for selling the same. [Each district, precinct or ward, shall vote upon the question at the spring election, and a majority shall decide question whether license shall be granted in the district, precinct or ward for one year - any minor falsely representing himself as twenty-one years of age to procure liquor, shall be fined, &c.] It was read the first ti and referred to the Committee on Temperance.
ABSENCE.
Mr. Morrison, Mr. Douglass and Mr. Newland obtained leave of absence till Tuesday.
LOTTERIES.
Mr. HUGHES introduced a bill [H. R. 310] for an act to amend an act approved February, 1859, to amend the 33d section of the general act defining misdemeanors prescribing punishment therefor. [It proposes to amend the penalty in the general law against buying and selling lottery tickets, and tickets in any scheme for a division of property not authorized by law, so as to read: "Shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $500." It proposes, also, to relieve from this penalty any person engaging in such a scheme who shall, in good faith, apply one-third of the net proceeds thereof for the relief of soldiers of the late war, or their families, or to the erection of monuments to soldiers who fell in battle, provided they shall first file a bond conditioned for such faithful application of the said one-third of the net proceeds, &c.] It was read the first time and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
OFFICIAL PERJURY
Mr. KIZER introduced a bill [H. R. 311] for an act to define perjury in members of the Legislature and others filling official positions in the State of Indiana, and prescribing punishment therefor. [It proposes that any member of the General Assembly who shall willfully violate the spirit and letter of the Constitution, or who shall vote for any person to any position elective by the General Assembly who is not eligible,upon conviction thereof he shall be deemed guilty of perjury and imprisoned not less than two, nor more thanfour years, and be disfranchised for any term not exceeding ten years, &c.] It was read the first time and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
WHARVES.
Mr. BRUCKER introduced a bill [H. R. 312] for an act to authorize the Board of Trustees of any incorporated town in the State of Indiana to lease any wharf or part of a wharf within the limits of said town, [for any period of time not exceeding fifty years.] It was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
STOCK INSURANCE.
Mr. CAMPBELL introduced a bill [H. R. 313,] for an act to authorize live stock insurance companies, prescribing that they may adopt a brand, and providing punishment for infringements, &e. [It proposes that the capital stock of any such live stock or detective insurance company shall not exceed $500,000; and that they be declared corporations to continue 30 years.] It was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Corporations.
Mr. BARRITT obtained leave of absence for this day.
TREASURERS' FEES.
Mr. STEWART,(for Mr. Martin) introduced a bill [H. R. 314] for an act to amend section 5 of the act to amend sundry sections of the general valuation and assessment act, and to repeal the act to amend the 143d section of said act. [The County Treasurer to be allowed 5 per cent, for collections and mileage to the delinquent tax payer.] It was read the first time, and referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
COAL OIL.
On motion by Mr. WHITE, his bill [H. R. 284] to prohibit the sale for burning; purposes of coal oil of a lower fire test than 110 degrees, and providing penalty therefor, (not less than ten or more than fifty dollars,) was taken from the table, ordered to the engrossment, and made the special order for Wednesday at 10 o'clock.
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved-for leave to submit a minority report from the special committee on, the Agricultural College, returning and recommending his bill [H. R. 214] creating, establishing and providing for the maintainance of four colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts, described in page 149 of these Reports, desiring to have the same made the special order for Wednesday next. He was tired of waiting for the majority report,and he supposed they would not report before the end of the session.
Mr. HUGHES said: This motion presents just such a case as that submitted by the gentleman from Vigo [Mr. McLean], from the Committee on Education, a few days ago, which was decided to be out of order.
page: 254[View Page 254]The SPEAKER. The minority certainly can not report where there is no report from the majority.
Mr. CAMPBELL then asked for unanimous consent of the House to a motion for an order that the bill be returned to the House, and that it be made the special order for Wednesday.
Mr. COREY said: The bill will be returned by the committee early next week. The House certainly ought not to make a special order for the consideration of a matter they can not understand.
Mr. CAMPBELL insisted that the bill ought to come before the House.
Mr. COREY. I stated a moment ago that the bill will be reported early in the coming week.
Mr. CAMPBELL. What objection can the gentleman have then to the motion that the bill be returned immediately, and made the special order. I do not see how any gentleman could object to that.
Mr. COREY. We do not expect to return the bill without making a report upon it.
Mr. MILLER. The gentleman from Hendricks, [Mr. Campbell] says he can't see how any gentleman can object to his right to withdraw his bill from a committee. It might be retorted by asking again how any gentleman can insist upon it? He has no right to recall his bill, to take it out of the hands of the committee, when he finds they are going to report against it. The bill ought to remain where it is until the committee shall decide upon it. He recollected that when it appeared to the gentleman that the committee were going to favor his bill, he was entirely satisfied, but now since he has found out that they are going to report against it he wants to take it out of their hands.
Mr. CAMPBELL submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Special Committee on the Agricultural College be instructed to return House Bill No. 214 for the action of this House.
Mr. MILLER moved to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. CAMPBELL said, seeing the temper of the House, he would withdraw the resolution.
UNIVERSITY SQUARE.
The SPEAKER said the House would now return to the unfinished business of yesterday, viz: the consideration of the bill [H. R. 258] for the sale of University Square, &c., upon which the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Newcomb] has the floor.
Mr. NEWCOMB said he had intended to go on with his argument this morning, and would do so if the House insist upon it. But the Hall is thin this morning, and he questioned whether we could get a quorum for the vote. He was willing, therefore, to propose that this matter be postponed till Tuesday, three o'clock, when we will be able to bring the bill to a vote. In the meantime the House can take up Senate bills on the first reading, and there will be no time lost. He made the motion to postpone, and it was agreed to by consent.
Mr. BAKER proposed to amend the motion to refer this bill [R. H. No. 258] by adding further instructions to this effect: That the Committee on Education be instructed to inquire and ascertain whether the title of Vincennes University to this University Square is not paramount to that of any other claimant.
So the further consideration of the bill and pending propositions to amend were postponed and made the special order for Tuesday, 3 o'clock.
CLAIM.
Mr. HARTMAN obtained leave to submit papers in a claim for expenses incurred by one of the Committees of last session, which, without reading, were referred to the Committee on Claims.
THE CALENDAR.
The Congressional apportionment bill [S. No. 1 - see page 217 of these Reports] was passed to the second reading, and referred to the Special Committee on Congressional Apportionment.
The Senatorial and Representative apportionment bill S. 166 - see page 218 of these Reports] was passed to the second reading, and referred to the Committee on Legislative Apportionment.
The seventh judicial circuit bill [S. 42] was passed to the second reading, and referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
The thirteenth judicial circuit bill [S. 40] was passed to the second reading, and referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
The House of Refuge bill [S. 161] was passed to the second reading, and referred to the Committee on the House of Refuge.
The Notaries legalizing acknowledgments bill [S. 24] coming up on the second reading - it was passed to the third reading.
The Langdon vs. Applegate repeal bill [S. 65] coming up on its second reading, it was ordered to the third reading.
The Clerk, Notary and Justices' and soldiers' Fee bill [S. 22] coming up on the second reading, it was ordered to the third reading.
The Two Years Fish Protection bill [S. 30] coming up on the second reading, it was ordered to the third reading.
The Change of Venue bill [S. 13] coming up on the second reading, it was passed to the third reading.
page: 255[View Page 255]The Capias ad Satisfaciendum bill [S. 32] coming up on the second reading, it was passed to the third reading.
The Road Law Amendment bill [S. 43] coming up on the second reading, it was passed to the third reading.
The 57th section, city corporations Amendment bill, coming upon, the second reading, with the Judiciary Committee's amendments, (with regard to slack water navigation companies.) The amendments were adopted and ordered to the engrossment, and the bill was ordered to the third reading.
The 70th section assessment laws amendment bill [S. 58] coming up on the second reading, with the amendment of the Committee on Ways and Means, striking out the emergency clause -
Mr. NEWCOMB said it makes an advance of one month - one month earlier of the time when the Assessors are to make returns of their tax lists - (the 1st of April). The Committee thought there was good reason for making the change, but that it ought not to take effect this year.
The amendment was adopted, and the bill was ordered to the third reading.
MINORS IN THE FACTORIES.
On the motion of Mr. BRUCKER, the Houee took up his working minors bill, [H. R. 81] from the table, and it was ordered to the engrossment.
STREET RAILROADS.
Mr. Newcomb's street railroads preferred stock bill [H. R. 142] coming up on the second reading, with the Railroad Committee's amendment. [The company shall issue preferred stock not exceeding one-half the amount of capital, and incorporating the general railroad provision.
The amendment was concurred in.
Mr. MILLER proposed to amend by inserting "two-thirds of the stockholders," instead of "one half," &c. He said:
He said, if one man or two men happened to own a majority of the stock they can impose just suce terms as they may choose upon the company.
Mr. HUGHES. How would it be with some stockholders who have paid up their assessments?
Mr. MILLER said he had another amendment providing that where a stock holder has paid up his assessments he shall not be assessed again, till the assetts shall be exhausted. He said he had several amendments to propose with he would ask leave to send up and have them read. They are to the following effect:
Strike out in the sixth line the words "owning a majority of the stock," and insert "owning two-thirds," & c
Strike out in the sixteenth line the word "or," and insert the word "and" in lieu.
Strike out the twenty-sixth line entirely.
Amend by adding these words: "provided that no assessment shall be made on any scockholdr who has paid up the amount of his stock, until all the funds shall have been exhausted in the payment of said debts or liabilities."
Mr. NEWCOMB thought the gentleman had better move to refere the bill again to the Committee on Railroads, and instruct them to report a new bill. The object of the bill was to enable Street Railroad Companies to levy an assessment on their stockholders to pay their debts, or to issue preferred stock. But the gentleman proposes that nothing shall be done of this kind till the company shall be used up, in other words, that the company shall sell out before it shall pay its debts. The object is to enable these companies to pay their debts - not sell them out. It was good policy for the General Assembly to provide that corporations shall pay their debts, just as you and I. By this amendment, if a street railroad has involved itself in debt, we shall compel them to go into court and get a judgment and decree, by which the company itself must be dissolved. There was a street railroad owned by some of his constituents, which was somewhat in debt and wanted to pay. We have allowed other companies to do the same thing. He did not know whether the gentleman from Tippecanoe [Mr. Miller] has any street railroads in his city.
Mr. MILLER. We have an artesian well.
Mr. NEWCOMB. That's a pretty good substitute.
Mr. KIZER. There are very few cities in the State that have street railroads at the present time. We have none yet in our city, but are talking about it. I understand that some of the street railroad companies here in Indianapolis have got into debt; and that it is the object of this bill to allow them to pay their debts. I do not see anything wrong about that. I have no prejudice against Indianapolis, and if I thought anything I might say would kill the bill I would not say anything. I hope the bill will not be killed. Give the people a chance to protect themselves.
Mr. BELFORD. In supporting these amendments calculated to cripple the bill, I am not influenced by any feeling of hostility to this city. I am certainly as proud of the prosperity of this city, as any gentleman who resides here. But I am opposed to this bill. I believe it is a scheme of speculation of parties who own these street railroads, and failing in my effort to kill it in the Committee, I am opposed to the passage of the bill here, unless these amendments are in it. I understood that the object of it is to authorize resident stockholders to issue preferred stock, in order to pay the debts against the company. But I hold that, as the law now stands these page: 256[View Page 256] non-resident stockholders can be reached, without authorizing them to issue preferred stock - and how? It can be done by the creditors of this company suing out an attachment against the non-resident stockholders and so making them subject to pay their debts by garnishments. We are told that their creditors will be injured unless this bill is passed. But we had no petition before the Railroad Committee for the passage of this bill. I understood there that something like half the stock is owned by non-residents: and that originally the road was built by non-residents: and that lately the greater portion of the stock has been purchased by two or three individuals here in Indianapolis. We propose that they shall only issue preferred stock for the debts contracted in the construction of the road. Can there be anything objectionable in that? I know that my friend the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Newcomb] feels some interest in this bill. He was before the Committee. But I do certainly think that these amendments are proper and right. This bill provides for issuing bonds to pay the liabilities due or to become due - that this may be done by the "stockholders owning a majority of the stock." We propose to amend it by saying "two-thirds of the stockholders.' Under the original bill the road may be controlled by a few individuals here, who will receive all the profits arising from this preferred stock. We demand that two-thirds of the stockholders shall be a precedent condition for the issuance of preferred stock. Can there be any objections to the incorporation into the bill that the consent of two-thirds of the stockholders shall be a precedent condition? We propose further to strike out the twenty-sixth line in the bill, containing these words: "Owning a majority of the stock." That is done to give consistency and harmony on the bill. In the sixteenth line we strike out the word "or," and insert the word "and" in lieu - "and personal notice given." I do not propose to arm these men with power, by merely giving notice in the newspapers, to sell out this stock. If they want to tramp out the life of these non-resident stockholders, they must give personal notice to these non-residents.
Mr. ROSS. How can you give personal notice?
Mr. BELFORD. We can not give personal notice better than that which would apply in a court of justice. Where the party is a non-resident, if you serve notice upon him here it amounts to no more than constructive service. But it is not competent to send notice and have it served in the city of New York or in Chicago? Should we not give the same notice to sell stock that would prevent a judgment from being opened up? I think it should be incumbent upon them to give this notice. I have no personal hostility to the author of the bill. I never saw Mr. Alford nor Mr. English but once before the committee.
Mr. NEWCOMB, Suppose you can not find these non-residents - what then?
Mr. BELFORD. You can sell his stock. I suppose there is a registry kept of parties who are stockholders, from which it can be ascertained where they reside.
Mr. WOODS. That is, service of notice at the residence of the party.
Mr. NEWCOMB. I would have no objection to that.
Mr. BELFORD. But I am in favor of a recommitment of the bill, and when I can be satisfied that the interests ofall these parties are well guarded, I shall be in favor of the bill. I do not desire to interfere with the resident stockholders here, neither do I wish to lend myself to the support of a bill that will give power to those who may be owners of a majority of the stock to absolutely swamp and deluge parties who do not reside here and do not happen to hold the same amount of stock with themselves. I hope it will be recommitted, and that these gentlemen will come in here and help to get up a bill that will guard all the interests of the Company and all concerned. Under this bill you can go to work and issue preferred stock without giving stockholders any knowledge of what the earnings of the Company are. We propose by the amendment that these earnings, funds and assets shall be first applied to the payment of the Company's debts. And we propse, also that after any stockholder has paid up his stock, no more burdens shall be imposed on him till the earnings are applied for that purpose, or the road offered for sale.
Mr. McFADIN was in favor of any improvement that subserved the interests of the people; and he thought this improvement very beneficial - that these men in Indianapolis have got up a very good thing and that it ought to be favored by the General Assembly. The citizens of Indianapolis were in favor of it, because they keep it up. Therefore, he was in favor of this bill, and hoped it would pass.
Mr. HARTMAN. I take no interest in this bill, except that which arises from my consciencious sentiment that it is right. It was before the Railroad Committee, and we acted upon it with deliberation. All but one of the Railroad Committee came to the conclusion that is was just and proper. I wish to refer to a remark or two made by the gentleman from Laporte [Mr. Belford.] He says: Suppose this road was built by foreigners and now a majority of the stock is owned by residents, if the residents issue preferred stock they page: 257[View Page 257] BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS. 257will crowd out the foreign stockholders, who built that road. Well, suppose these foreign men did build the road, and the road has proved unprofitable; and that these resident stockholders put in and make extensions, whilst these foreign men have remained idle and refused to do any more, and now the road is in debt. The House will recollect that the bill provides only for existing indebtedness. The case stands this way: Suppose only a majority of the stock is owned by resident stockholders - (and gentlemen know, perhaps, that two-thirds of the stock. We ask nothing in this bill that is dangerous to any interest. The provisions of the general railroad law ar ein it. It is sufficient if we allowed them the same power that exists in corporations under the general railroad law. But the gentleman says these foreign stockholders can be garnisheed. But if you look at their charter you will find that the stockholders have been made individually liable. I do not favor corporations above individuals; and I believe that our system of creating numerous corporations will prove dangerous to the people. But, as I said before, we have investigated this matter. Their debt is on contracts for the construction of the road and these resident stockholders here are individually liable for these debts. A large portion of the stock is owned by foreigners, and the gentleman says these foreigners can be reached by garnishment. But suppose these creditors bring suit, I will ask the gentleman are they compelled to garnishee foreign stockholders. No, sir. They can collect as they please so they get their money. They can sue resident stockholders and collect as well their indebtedness from them. And thus this fifty thousand dollars of debt may be collected of resident stockholders without touching any of the foreign stockholders. There is no law that will prefer one to the other when both are equally liable. So gentlemen see we are not favoring anybody here. But if we were favoring any party it would be most advisable certainly to favor those residents who are bearing the burdens of the road; instead of the foreign stockholders who have really abandoned active operations. I understand that the road is hardly paying expenses now, but there is in it undoubtedly, a prospective advantage. I am not in favor of this recommitment. The Committee have already considered the subject as carefully as they are able. The amendments should be either adopted or rejected now.
On motion by Mr. McFADIN it was -
Ordered, That when the House adjourns it shall be till Monday next at 2 o'clock P. M.
And then the House adjourned.
