AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed at half-past two o'clock, p. m.
page: 120[View Page 120]Mr. PIERCE of Porter, moved to reconsider the vote of two days ago, dispensing with the cloak keeper amongst the police of the House. He slated his reasons for the motion to be, that since that time two or three members had lost their overcoats. He did not know whether this was a part of an attempt to force a keeper of cloaks upon the House or not, but, if not, the fact conclusively proved the necessity for such an employee, and while he would like to have some one employed to do that duty, he would not be willing to pay any very large per diem for the service.
Mr. DAVIS of Elkhart, opposed the voting of the people's money to pay men for taking care of the overcoats of members of the General Assembly. He thought the House had wrangled long enough on the matter, and weary of the debates and waste of time induced by motions for needless employees of the House, demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, said that if the motion was going to develop opposition and incite a discussion, he would withdraw it.
Mr. Barnett obtained leave of absence on account of sickness; and Mr. Davidson, absence for three days of next week.
INTEREST ON JUDGMENTS.
The SPEAKER announced the continuation of proceedings on Mr. Field of Lake's ten per cent, interest judgment bill [H. R. 14] the question being on Mr. Long's amendment, submitted before dinner.
Mr. GORDON supported the bill, but opposed the amendment. The amendment would leave the law about as uncertain as it now stands. He thought the uniformity that would be secured by the passage of the bill should serve to recommend it to the favor of the House. He believed that if a man agrees with another to pay ten per cent, it is right that he should continue to pay the ten per cent, until the debt is paid. He thought the effect of the amendment of the gentleman from Jackson would be to kill the bill.
Mr. WILSON claimed that no man had the right to say what a usurer shall charge for his money, any more than he has to fix the prices that the keeper of a livery stable shall charge for the use of his horse and vehicle. This bill simply declares that the same per cent, agreed upon by the borrower in the contract shall apply to the judgment, should it become necessary lor the lender to collect the indebtedness by law. The Legislation has heretofore been in favor of the debtors and against creditors. He thought the law simply proposed to do justice to both classes, and he desired the passage of the bill as it was reported from the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WELBORN said the Courts in his part of the State ruled that no judgment could be entered bearing more than six per cent, interest. He was satisfied that we needed remedial Legislation as to the usury laws, and believed that borrowers agreeing to pay ten per cent., should be compelled to pay the same rate of interest until the judgment is paid. We should have no law that is susceptible of divers constructions. On the whole, he was opposed to the amendment, and would vote for the bill.
Mr. BUSKIRK stated the question: The bill proposes to allow ten per cent, interest on judgment rendered upon a contract specifying that rate, and the amendment of Mr. Long, authorizes such interest on the judgment, only in case the judgment defendant agrees to it. If parties have the right to contract for ten per cent., it was reasonable that the same per cent, should be allowed on the judgment. He was opposed to the amendment, and in favor of the bill. The former legislation of the General Assembly recognizes the right of the borrower to contract for money at ten per cent., and this law goes one step further, and says that when a contract merges into a judgment, that the ten per cent, shall be continued until the judgment is paid. He regarded the provisions of the act as but just to both parties, and hoped the bill would become a law.
Mr. COTTON moved an amendment, declaring that all contracts for attorney's fees, incurred on account of the collection of notes, shall be void. He moved to recommit the bill with such instructions.
The SPEAKER ruled the amendment out of order, at this stage of the consideration of the bill.
Mr. SHOAFF was in favor of the bill, because it would work a larger indulgence toward the debtor.
Mr. MITCHELL said that if a man is foolish enough to contract for money at such rates of interests, he ought to be compelled to pay it until the debt is paid, whether in the shape of a promissory note, or of a judgment.
Mr. NEFF earnestly opposed the bill. He said he had intended to give a silent vote, but since the bill had become to be regarded as a panacea for all the ills attaching to the business of money lending, he had determined to raise his voice against the tendency of legislation to protect the interests of the usurers an against the borrowers. How many years has it been since it was a penal offence for a money lender to charge a higher rate of interest than six per cent? It has been but two years since the Legislature authorized the taking of a higher rate, and yet upon that small advantage, in this short space of time, we find the moneyed interest grown so bold, as to ask the additional advantage of having this ruinous rate of interest follow the indebtedness into court, and attach to the judgment. It has been the wise practice of the Legislative power, in page: 121[View Page 121] times past, to hedge about the moneyed power, and protect the poorer classes, but within two years after its first step towards breaking down these barriers against extortion, it boldly attempts to legalize the usurious rate charged in the bond. The gentleman said he did not rise to make what might be called a poor-house argument, but he thought this a step too far. He thought six per cent enough. He thought the moneyed power had gained too great an advantage in getting authority to charge ten per cent interest on contracts and he could not refrain from lifting his voice against the additional advantage sought, in the bill before the House.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, could see no reason why a law suit, should absolve a borrower from the provisions of a contract. Money, he said, is but an article of commerce, and the protection granted to those other branches of trade should be extended to those who deal in money. The rates of interest granted in contract, he thought, should follow the indebtedness into court, and attach to judgment.
Mr. OSBORN submitted the inquiry whether under the provisions of this bill, the judgment debtor would have to pay ten per cent, interest on costs?
Mr. ODELL moved to lay the amendment on the table, but he withdrew his motion for--
Mr. LONG, who explaining his motive in offering his amendment; admitted it was not friendly to the moneyed interest. It was, he said, an argument used in favor of the bill authorizing ten per cent. interest, that the high rate would have a tendency to break down the credit system. Since the ten per cent., is authorized, and there are instances in which men are compelled to pay that rate for temporary relief; he is not in favor of using the courts of the State to add still further to that man's misfortune, when he gets into the courts, by attaching an usurious rate of interest to the judgment, without his consent. He doubted the general public advantage of the credit system, and of all laws for the collection of debts. Say what you will about this bill, its most evident tendency was to increase the rate of interest. His amendment was, a man agrees that the judgment shall demand ten per cent, he must pay it, and if he suffered under it, it was his own fault. The great mass of the common people do not yet commonly exact more than six per cent.
On motion by Mr. ODELL the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. OSBORN proposed to amend the first section by striking out all after the word "enacted," and inserting "no judgment shall be rendered by any court in this State to draw more than six per cent, interest, unless the8judgment defendant appear in open court and agree to such judgment."
A VOICE--All he has to do is tot stay out of court. [Laughter.]
On motion by Mr. GORDON Mr. Osborn's amendment was laid on the table, by yeas 60, nays 27.
Mr. GREEN demanded the previous question, and there was a second, and the main question was ordered.
And then--
The bill was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. RATLIFF, from the Special Committee thereon returned the bill [S. 1] relating to the courts in Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, with an amendment--so as not to interfere with the court term in Grant county, etc.
The amendment was adopted and the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS.
Mr. WILSON submitted the following resolution:
RESOLVED, That the Committee on the Organization of Courts be instructed to report a bill or bills for the redistricting of the State for judicial purposes, and the formation of such new districts and circuits as the business of the Courts of the State requires, giving to all the Courts ample time for the transaction of the business thereof.
Mr. RATLIFF proposed to amend, so as to require said Committee to inquire into the expediency of reporting a bill, etc.
Mr. WILSON accepted the modification.
Mr. McFADIN considered this resolution to be a drive in the right direction. This whale business of Circuit Courts should be under the supervision of the same Committee. The other course of local change would work hardships inevitably.
Mr. CARNAHAN would prefer that the resolution should be referred to a select Committee from the various portions of the State--one from each judicial district--to confer with the standing committee.
On motion of Mr. McFADIN, Mr. Carnahan's amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Parke, submitted an amendment that the said Committee report their judgment as to the expediency of redistricting for judicial purposes.
Mr. WILDMAN. Considering the amount of business for the Committees on the organization of Courts and the Committee on Fees and Salaries, he would be in favor of employing competent men, outside of the Legislature to assist them.
Mr. WILSON preferred the original prop-position, because there was a pressing necessity for action in this matter.
The vote on the adoption of Mr. Johnston's amendment discovered no quorum.
Whereupon--
The SPEAKER (Mr. Williams, of Knox, in the chair) directed a call of the House.
page: 122[View Page 122]The Clerk's roll discovered a quorum present and answering to the call.
So further proceedings thereunder was dispensed with.
Mr. Johnston's amendment was then adopted.
And so, the original resolution, as amended was adopted.
A message from the Senate announced the passage of a bill [S. 17] and requested the concurrence of the House.
ORDERS
Mr. ODELL submitted an order, which was adopted, that the Doorkeeper require that the initial letter of the name of each wrapped newspaper furnished the House shall be stamped on the wrapper.
Mr. BEELER submitted an order for the employment of two persons to take charge of the rooms of standing committees.
Mr. UNDERWOOD submitted an order which was adopted, that the Librarian procure a copy of the last journal of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly for the use of the Clerk.
Mr. BUSKIRK, from the special Committee thereon, reported the designations of rooms for the several Standing Committees of the House, which was concurred in.
A motion to adjourn till Monday at two and a half o'clock was rejected--yeas 36, nays 45.
The House then adjourned till to-morrow morning at ten o'clock
