THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, January 19, 1869.The House met at ten o'clock a. m.
The journal of yesterday having been read--
Mr. UNDERWOOD submitted the following:
RESOLVED, That at the hour of twelve o'clock, meridian to-day, this house will, in pursuance of an act of Congress of the United States, entitled "an act to regulate the time and manner of holding elections for Senators in Congress," approved July 25, 1866, proceed to vote for Senator in Congress of the United States, for the term of six years, from and after the 4th day of March, 1869, in the place of Hon. Thomas A. Hendricks, the present iucumbent.
It was adopted.
The SPEAKER announced the Committee on the part of the House on female prison; Messrs. Welborn, Gilham, Stewart of Bush, Breckinridge and Zenor.
PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, &C.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox, presented the petition of Daniel Harrison and others for reimbursement of moneys expended in procuring release from unjust imprisonment in Mississippi.
It was referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr.CHAPMAN, Mr.TABOR, Mr.PIERCE of Vigo, Mr. GREEN and Mr. ODELL presented petitions for Legislation as to railroads, freights, etc., which were referred to the Committee on Railroads.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, Mr. GREEN and Mr. BOWEN presented petitions for a separate prison for females, which were referred to the special Committee on Prisons.
Mr. BEELER presented a petition in regard to the Marion County Gravel Road Company.
It was referred to the Committee on Roads.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. COFFROTH from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Wilson's bill, [H. R. 31] to amend the justices' act of June 9, 1862. with amendment by way of substitute-- Justices limited to their townships, excepting in cases where the debt is contracted in another township of the county.
Mr. CORY, from the Committee on Organization of Courts, returned and reported against Senate Court bill, No. 2--as superseded matter.
Mr. SKIDMORE, from the special Committee on Employes, reported as to the time when the pay of the employes of the House of Representatives should commence; which was concurred in.
BILLS FOR ACTS.
Mr. COFFROTH introduced a bill, [H. R. 62] to provide for teaching German in the common schools, when a majority of the voters in the school district shall require the same.
It was referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. VATER introduced a bill (H.R.63) prohibiting the use of spring balances for articles sold by weight.
It was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. RUDDELL introduced a bill(H.R. 64) for an act defining what countes shall constitute the twelfth Common Pleas District, (Marion and Hendricks.)
It was referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
Mr. OSBORN introduced a bill (H. R. 65) for an act amending section fifteen of the Manufacturing Company's general act of May 20, page: 139[View Page 139] 1852, and defining the meaning of the word "annually" therein.
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiary.
Mr. FIELD, of Lake, introduced a bill (H. R. 66) defining a certain felony or misdemeanor, and prescribing punishment therefor, (Prize fighting and any person attending thereupon.)
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KERCHEVAL introduced a bill [H. R. 67] regulating certain fees to Sheriffs and Clerks of Circuit Courts, and prohibiting extra allowances by County Commissioners of over one hundred dollars per annum.
It was referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE introduced a bill [H. R. 68] to amend sections sixty-three and sixty-nine of chapter twelve of the general city corporation act of March 14, 1867, which was referred to the Committee on Cities and Towns.
Mr. MASON introduced a bill [H. R. 69] to provide for the election of County Surveyors and other officers named, prescribing their compensation, and repealing, etc.
It was referred to the Committee on County and Township business.
Mr. STEWART, of Ohio, introduced a bill [H. R. 70] to amend the eighth and eleventh sections of the liquor law, of March 5, 1859, I which was referred to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. ODELL introduced a bill [H. R. 71] to amend section thirteen of the general town incorporation act of June 11, 1852.
It was referred to the Committee on Cities and Towns.
Mr. RUDDELL introduced a bill, [H. R. 72] defining what counties shall constitute the fifth judicial circuit, and fixing the time of holding court therein.
It was referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
Mr. NEFF introduced a bill, (H. R. 73) to amend section fifteen of the act regulating the fees of officers, and repealing, etc., approved March 7, 1855.
It was referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
Mr. OVERMYER introduced a bill [H. R. 74] prescribing what counties shall constitute the First Judicial Circuit, and creating the Twenty-second and Twenty-third Judicial Circuits, fixing the time of holding Courts therein, regulating entries of process, prescribing fees, etc.
It was referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
Mr. BARRETT introduced a bill, [H. R. 75] to amend the act of March 7, 1861, fixing the time of holding court in the First Judicial Circuit.
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM introduced a bill, (H. R. 76) to regulate the tenure of office of certain township officers, and repealing, etc.
It was referred to the Committee on County and Township business.
Mr. WILE introduced a bill (H. R. 77) to repeal the act in relation to the change of public highways, approved March 11, 1867.It was referred to the Committee on Roads.
Mr. McFADIN offered the following:
RESOLVED, That the Committee on Rights and Privileges of the inhabitants of the State are hereby instructed to inquire into the propriety of reporting a bill to the House, giving the right to mechanics of all kinds to hold a lien for the term of thirty or sixty days on all kinds of property that they may manufacture and sell on credit, for the purpose of securing their pay for the same, and report by bill or otherwise.
It was adopted.
Mr. OSBORN submitted a resolution which was adopted, that the Committee on Fees and Salaries consider the propriety of allowing witnesses subpoenaed in State cases, and out of the country, to be paid on the certificate of the Circuit Court Clerk, out of the county Treasury, etc.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Hamilton, introduced a bill (H. R. 78) to regulate the fees of county officers etc. and regulating allowances by county boards, etc., and asked that the bill be referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
Mr. COFFROTH remarked that if he remembered correctly the Supreme Court had decided in the Beall case, that the salaries of county officers could not be regulated by the legislative power on the basis of population, and, therefore moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. STEPHENSON said, that he was not aware of such decision, but to allow of an investigation of the matter he would consent to the reference. The bill was referred.
Mr. WILDMAN introduced a bill [H. R. 79] to provide for the erection and repairs of bridges; and repealing, etc., which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WILSON introduced a bill (H. R. 80) declaring what evidence shall be sufficient to establish the title to real estate sold at Sheriff's sale on execution, and providing that such sales not be adjudged void or set aside on account of the failure of the sheriff to sell in parcels.
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. VATER introduced a bill (H. R. 81) creating a lien on property for labor performed thereon, material furnished etc., repealing etc.
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FULLER introduced a bill (H. R. 82) page: 140[View Page 140] to amend section two of the act for the protection of wild game.
It was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. McDONALD introduced a bill, (H. R. 83) to amend sections sixteen, seventeen and eighteen of the act regulating the fees of officers, approved March 2, 1855, and declaring an emergency.
It was referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
Mr. RATLIFF introduced a bill (H. R. 84) to regulate the fees of the State Board of Education, which was referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. COFFROTH introduced a bill (H. R. 85) to amend the three hundred and fifteenth section of the civil procedure and practice act, of June 18, 1852, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BAKER introduced a bill (H. R. 86) to amend section one of the registry law, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. STEWART of Hush, introduced a bill (H. R. 87) to amend the first section of the act authorizing the assessment of lands for roads, of May 12, 1852.
It was referred to the Committee on Roads.
Mr. JUMP introduced a bill (H.R.88) providing for an act supplemental to an act providing for gravel roads, approved March 7, 1867.
It was referred to the Committee on Roads.
Mr. RATLIFF submitted an order that the time of meeting of the House, until further ordered, shall be nine o'clock a. m. and two o'clock p. m.
Mr. UNDERWOOD moved, ineffectually, to lay it on the table--yeas, 30; nays, 67.
ELECTION OF UNITED STATES SENATOR.
Mr. WILDMAN and Mr. UNDERWOOD demanded the special order for this hour--twelve o'clock p. m.--the election of United States Senator.
A call of the House discovered one hundred members present and answering to their names.
Mr. WILDMAN placed in nomination the Hon. Will Cumback.
Mr. COFFROTH nominated the Hon. Thomas A. Hendricks.
Mr. BAKER placed in nomination the Hon. Godlove S. Orth.
Mr. CHAPMAN placed in nomination the Hon. James S. Frazier.
Mr. DAVIS placed in nomination the Hon. E. W. H. Ellis.
There being no further nominations, the vote preceded, and the result was annouoced, to-wit:
Those who voted for Mr. Cumback were--
Messrs. Barnett, Beeler, Bowen, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Chittenden, Davidson, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Greene, Hall, Hamilton, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of St. Joseph, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Monroe, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Underwood, Vardeman, * Vater, * Wildman, Williams of Hamton, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, Wilson and Mr. Sperker--48.
Those who voted for Mr. Hendricks were--
Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barrett, Bates, Bobo, Bntton, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Coffroth, Gory, Cotton, Cox, Cunningham, Dittemore, Fuller, Ghormley, Hutchings, Hyatt, Johnston of Montgomery, Lawler, Logan, Long, McBride, MoDonald, McFadin, McGregor, Miles, Miner, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Palmer, Pealle, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Sunman, Tebbs, Welborn, Wile, Williams of Knox, Zenor and Zollars--45.
For Mr. Orth--Mr. Baker--1.
For Mr. Frazier--Messrs. Chapman, Mitchell and Taber--3.
For Mr. Ellis--Messrs. Davis and Higbee--2.
For Mr. Thompson--Mr. Pierce of Vigo--1.
RECAPITULATIONS.
| Mr. Cumback received................................. | 48 votes |
| Mr. Hendricks received............................... | 45 votes |
| Mr. Frazier received................................. | 3 votes |
| Mr. Ellis received................................... | 2 votes |
| Mr. Thompson received................................ | 1 vote |
| Mr. Orth received.................................... | 1 vote |
The SPEAKER announced no election.
The House then took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER, resumed the Chair at half past two o'clock, p. m.
Mr. COFFROTH asked and obtained unanimous consent to offer a preamble and concurrent resolution, to-wit:
WHEREAS, By the custom heretofore prevailing when the two houses were in joint convention, the Lieutenant Governor has prisided over the joint convention; and,
WHEREAS, The person now holding the office of Lieutenant Governor is a candidate for the office of United States Senator; and,
WHEREAS, There is no law, will or usage, which permits the Lieutenant Governor, so situated as aforesaid, to preside over the joint convention when assembled to elect a United States Senator; therefore,
RESOLVED by the House, (the Senate concurring,) That the Hon. John R. Cravens, the Senator from Jefferson county shall preside over the joint convention when assembled for the election of United States Senator.
Mr. COFFROTH explained that the object of the resolution was simply to relieve the Lieutenant Governor of the embarrassment of the situation. He stated that Mr. Cravens was not of his political household, but that his ability as a parliamentarian and his reputation for impartiality he thought so recommended him to both parties, that the resolution would meet with favor.
Mr. OSBORN said in the Parliamentary Manuel it was provided, as a general rule, that,
* The Clerk's journal omits these names.
page: 141[View Page 141] when a question arises wherein the regular Chairman can not preside, that officer himself shall appoint the presiding officer. He believed the practice to be in parliamentary bodies for for the Chairman,in case the matter under consideration was personal to himself, to select some one from the body to preside in his place. He had no doubt that the custom in such cases might be observed in this, and thus save all the trouble to the two Houses of doing what there is neither any call for, nor any authority for doing.Mr. COFFROTH said that the gentleman stated the rule correctly as to deliberative bodies, such as the House or Senate acting in their separate capacities, but he knew of no rule or law indicating the presiding officer at joint sessions. If he had had knowledge of any law on the subject, the resolution, would not have been introduced. As there is none, he proposed to simply do for the Lieutenant Governor, what he presumed that gentleman would regard as a kindness.
Mr. GORDON, said he had no objection to the object of the resolution, if it was as stated by the gentleman; but he would oppose the resolution because he was opposed to the gentleman named in the resolution acting in that capacity. It is well known, he said, that Mr. Cravens is one of those who believe Mr. Cumback constitutionally ineligible to the positions of United States Senator, and he would not be willing to consent to the selecting of a presiding officer, whose views on that subject might beget rulings that would embarrass the action of the Legislature.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, thought that to act upon this matter without an expression of the wishes of the Lieutenant Governor, would be discourteous to him, and the more so since the gentleman mentioned in the resolution is known to be hostile to the interests of the Lieutenant Governor, as a candidate for United States Senator. He, however, thought that the embarrassment might b e relieved without objection on the part of the Lieutenant Governor and his friends, by inserting the name of Harvey B. Scott, Senator from Vigo County, in the place of Mr. Cravens, and moved to so amend.
Mr. OSBORN, said that he had opposed the resolution and would oppose the amendment, upon principle. The gentleman from Huntington [Mr. Coffroth] had said that the resolution had been offered with a view of relieving the Lieutenant Governor from embarrassment. He preceded to say that the Republicans had been watching the Democratic party for the past week and he felt satisfied from that observation, that the party represented on this floor by the gentleman from Huntington, would not only be willing to relieve the Lieutenant Governor in the manner indicated in the resolution, but would willingly extend relief to the procuring of the Lieutenant Governor's defeat for the office for which he was a candidate.
Mr. DITTEMORE, made the point of order that Mr. Osborn had spoken once upon the subject.
Mr. OSBORN said "Not upon the amendment."
Mr. COFFROTH insisted upon the gentleman confining himself strictly to the amendment, which referred merely to a change of names.
Mr. OSBORN then made the point of order that the preamble and resolution introduced by Mr. Coffroth is not a proper subject for the consideration of the House, and therefore out of order, for the reason that the selection by this body, of a presiding officer for a body that is to meet at some future time, and of which this House is but a part, is not a proper subject for the consideration of the House. If the body to meet finds itself without a presiding officer, the only competent power to select such presiding officer is that body itself.
The SPEAKER sustained the point of order.
Mr. COFFROTH appealed from the decision of the Chair to the judgment of the House--Mr. Palmer joining in the written appeal as follows:
There being pending before the House a preamble and concurrent resolution offered by the gentleman from Huntington, declaring who shall preside over the joint Convention when assembled for the election of a United States Senator, the Speaker ruled that the preamble and concurrent resolution were out of order, therefore we, the undersigned, appeal from said decision of the Chair.
(Signed,)
J. R. COFFROTH,
T. H. PALMER.
Mr. VARDEMAN moved to lay the appeal on the table.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded the yeas and nays, which being order and taken resulted--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beeler, Breckinridge, Chittenden, Davidson, Davis, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Green, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of St. Joseph, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Miller, Mitchell, Monroe, Osborn, Overmyer, Pierce of Porter, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Tabor, Underwood, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph, Wilson and Mr. Speaker--50.
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barrett, Bates, Bobo, Britton, Buskirk, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Coffroth, Gory, Cotton, Cox, Cunningham, Dittemore, Hutcliins, Hyatt, Johnston of Montgomery, Lawler, Logan, Long, McBride, McDonald, McFadin, MeGregor, Miles, Miner, Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Palmer, Peale, Pierce of Vigo, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Sunman, Tebbs, Welborn, Wile, Williams of Knox, Zenor and Zollars--46.
page: 142[View Page 142]Pending the roll call--
Mr. VATER explained that he would vote to lay the appeal upon the table, because it had not been properly gotten up, failing as it did to properly state the question.
Mr. COFFROTH said he was sorry for the deficiency. He thought up to that moment that he knew how to frame an appeal. He should hereafter consult the gentleman from Marion when he found it necessary to take a similar step.
The vote was announced as above recorded. The House now resumed the consideration of Mr. Ratliff's order to fix the time of meeting of the House at nine o'clock a. m., and at two o'clock p. m.
It was rejected on a division--affirmative 36, negative not announced.
Mr. McFADIN moved to suspend the order of business and take up Mr. Long's appraisement bill (H. R. 8.)
Mr. OSBORN stated that that bill was referred to the Committee on County and Towhship Business.
Mr. SABIN. It was irregular to take up a bill in the hands of a Committee.
Mr. McFADIN then moved, and it was ordered, that the Committee be directed to report the bill to-morrow at eleven o'clock.
Mr. GHORMLEY obtained leave of absence indefinitely, on account of tickness.
Mr. UNDERWOOD submitted a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, to-wit:
RESOLVED, The Senate concurring, that the Senate and House of "Representatives, will meet in Joint Convention in the Hall of the House of Representatives on to-morrow, the 20th inst., at 12 o'clock, M"., for the purpose of comparing the separate action this day taken by the Senate and House of Representatives respectively, in relation to the election of a Senator in Congress, to succeed the Hon T. A. Hendricks, upon the expiration of his term of service, and also for the purpose of taking such action as that comparison, and the provisions of the act of Congress in such cases made and provided may render necessary.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
The Senate concurrent resolution inviting Messrs. Charles T. Coffin, of Richmond, Ind. and Z. V. Brockway, of Detroit, Michigan, to address the Legislature at an early day upon the subject of prison reform, was adopted.
Mr. Coffroth's Foreign Guardian bill [H . R. 7] was taken up, it being on the third reading.
Mr. COFFROTH explained its object and necessity--allowing the guardian of heirs in another State to come here and take possession of their property. It follows exactly the rules that obtain in the cases of guardians and wards in this and other States.
The bill was passed the final reading in th House of Representatives--yeas 97, nays 0 with an amendment of title, striking out "bill and inserting "act" in lieu.
A message from the Senate announced the vote of that body this day for U. S. Senator.
INTEREST ON JUDGMENTS.
Mr. FIELD, of Lake's, bill [H. R. 14] to amend the amend section of the act regulating the interest on money, so as to change the law lat judgments shall bear ten per cent. interest when that is in the contract coming up--
Mr. OSBORN opposed the bill. He had hoped the bill would have so few friends as not to require an elaborate argument. Since, however, it has developed a support that he had little looked for, he was not willing to see the bill pass without offering his protest. The principal points made by the friends of the bill were as follows:
They say one important object sought is uniformity throughout the State, and in support of this view they urge that the judges if the circuit courts in one section decide ten per cent. legal interest one way and in another section not legal. If, sir, it is uniformity that is needed, that there may be no conflicting decisions of circuit judges, I am in favor of reaching that uniformity by declaring that ill judgments shall bear six per cent. interest and no more. I think a positive declaration of that character protecting the poor--the money borrowers--from usurious interest, would redound far more to the credit of the House than this, adding to the burdens they already bear, and granting fresh advantage to the money lenders.
Gentlemen say that the bill operates in the interest of money borrowers. And pray how? By requiring them to borrow money to pay ten per cent, interest on judgments that, under the present law draw but six? I repeat, that the legislation of the State for the past six years has been in the interest of the money lenders. It is seldom now that we cast a look to the interest of the money borrowers. It was urged some time since, that if a law was passed authorizing contracts for money at ten per cent., it would call out money hoarded in banks, and laid away in safes and dark corners, and that trade and commerce would thus receive a new and healthy stimulus. We enacted laws to that effect. The penalty for demanding more than six per cent, was removed, and now we have money lenders coming forward and asking the passage of a law legalizing the application of the per cent. named in the contract to the judgment. Step by step we have been marching on in the interest of the money lenders, enacting law after law, breaking down old safeguards and barriers, until it seems we are almost ready to yield to them whatever they may demand. Gentlemen could not plead that the law would operate to the advantage of the borrowers. Every one knows that the page: 143[View Page 143] inducement to the money lender to put his note into the shape of a judgment is so great, that it cannot fail to work oppression to the borrowers. Money lenders would be slow to sue, knowing that judgments could draw but six per cent. But legalize ten per cent., and litigation will increase more rapidly than ever before, and lawyers will fatten upon the misfortunes of the poorer classes, the borrowers. It has been said that you might as well attempt to legislate with a view to regulating men's appetites, as to endeavor to regulate the question of interest. And why so? Is there a subject requiring more than this, legislative action for the protection of the poor against extortion? If we have any right to pass laws authorizing the selling of a man's property for debt, under the hammer of the Sheriff', without regard to valuation or appraisement laws, we certainly have the right to see that the classes upon which these laws operate so severely, receive protection from extortion.
The whole matter resolves itself into the simple question, "are we prepared to say that the law shall be so changed upon this subject that, upon judgments upon which costs have accrued and are constantly accruing, from the issue of executions, and the like, we shall legalize the additional and uncalled for burden of ten per cent, in place of six-- an increase of four per cent.? I care not whether gentlemen may term my argument poor-house argument, or what not; I care not whether it is disreputable to speak in defense of the interests of the poor man in this Hall or not. I represent the poor as well as the rich men on this floor, and I have taken the opportunity, as I shall always do, to raise my voice against a bill that proposes to legislate for one class to the disadvantage of another. I take occasion to say that this legislation proposed in the bill before the House is for a class, and not for the whole people.
If he were to fix the law, he would say judgment should draw but six per cent. Legislation was tending too much toward favoring money lenders. He answered the plea that this legislation was to call money out of the banks and put it into circulation, and traced the history of this legislation in Indiana. Pass this bill and the spring courts would be flooded with suits on notes for ten per cent. But when the judgment changes the rate from ten per cent, to six per cent., the money lenders are slow to go into court against their borrowers. The proposition would increase litigation. It was a proposition to compound the interest on judgments, and that at ten per cent. Interest had always been regulated by law--divine as well as human--and the law should favor the class most likely to suffer. The friends of the bill say, supply and demand should regulate interest and not legislation. Then why do they ask for further legislation? Besides, these judgments embrace costs, and that also to bear ten per cent. The tendency of the bill would be to establish a higher price for money, and put it out of the reach of poorer men. It was an extraordinary proposition, and seriously objectionable in many ways.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, was surprised at this opposition, and could not see the force of the argument. He referred to the precise object of the bill: If I give my note for ten per cent., I cannot have the benefit of my own wrong, by compelling my creditor to go into court, and so pay but six per cent. It provides that I must stick to my promise. We should not legislate to lead men into temptation.
He, for one, had no desire to trample upon the rights of any one, and if of any, certainly not the poor, for of that class he was pained to feel that he was himself an unwilling member. He could not, he said, fathom the motive of the gentleman--good, no doubt--in opposing the bill. Affecting allusion to the poor and appeals to prejudice- would not serve as arguments against the bill. He, the speaker, claimed that the bill would operate to the advantage of the poor as well as the rich, and proceeded to illustrate. If a rich man buy of a poor man a horse or a cow, or borrows money of him and gives his note for the same at ten per cent., the said man can not under this law, as has been the case under the existing law, compel the poor man to sue for collection of note, and thus keep the advantage of a law authorizing a legal interest on judgments of but six per cent, but the poor man's note in the form of a judgment, under this law, would continue to draw the contract rate of interest. The bill before the House, in other words, simply contemplates compelling men to observe their contracts in all particulars, not excepting the matter of interest, and if any is to accrue to any class from a law compelling a faithful observance of contracts, then, and only then, can disadvantage to any class result from this.
Mr. BATES had but a few words to say on this subject. He was but a poor speaker, he said, but he could not let the bill go to a vote of the House without saying a word in favor of the bill. In his section, the money lenders were farmers; men of no great wealth, but men who managed to save a little from their little farms from year to year, and these amounts they loaned out to the wealthy speculators and traders. He had occasion to know something about the working of the present law, and he would mention a circumstance by way of illustrating his position on the bill before the House. As an officer of the county he had occasion some time past to collect the sum, page: 144[View Page 144] of thirteen thousand dollars from a wealthy man of his county, that had been loaned to him by the farmers about on notes bearing ten per cent, interest. The legal rate of interest being but six per cent., the farmers loaning these amounts were unable to recover but six of the ten per cent, they had contracted for.
Rich men in his region were not money lenders. They were farmers mostly, and they were losing the four per cent, on their loans. To secure money lenders, therefore, against frauds of this character, which would in no way work hardships or wrongs upon borrowers, he hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. BOWEN opposed the passage of the bill. The gentleman from Porter had expressed surprise at the ground taken by the gentleman from Putnam [Mr. Osborn.] The Speaker found nothing surprising in the attitude, save that arising from the apparent conflict between the interests of the gentlemen as a lawyer, which all tended to an opposite position upon this subject, and the position he assumed. Mr. Bowen said that up in his section, in old Wayne, both parties had borrowed money heavily for the purpose of buying substitutes to assist in saving the county. He said that notes made in this way, should this law pass, would all go at once into the hands of the lawyers, and thus there would be added to this indebtedness the costs of suit, besides the additional four per cent, interest. In many instances these notes given in this way and remaining unpaid, would be converted into judgments, thus working hardships upon the widows and families of those who may die before their liquidation. He hoped the law would not pass.
Mr. GORDON took the consideration that this question of judgment interest should be settled. The present law, under one construction, was like a premium on dishonesty. He would compel men by law to keep their contracts.
Mr. WILSON was in favor of the bill, not especially because he was afraid of rich or poor, but because it tended toward the removal of restrictions upon the rate of interest. It was a question of simple justice to compel men to keep their contracts. It was right that men should be able to enforce legal obligations. It was idle to legislate to control the laws of trade. Stringent interest laws drive away capital.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Parke, answered objections urged by Mr. Osborne. He represented an honest constituency, willing to respect and pay their obligations to the letter. He was in favor of a fixed rate of interest; but to fix it at six per cent, was to carry money out of the State. The gentleman's argument that the bill compounds interest, would be with equal force against all judgments. Interest was always put into the judgment.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Parke, answered objections urged by Mr. Osborne. He represented an honest constituency, willing to respect and pay their obligations to the letter. He was in favor of a fixed rate of interest; but to fix it at six per cent, was to carry money out of the State. The gentleman's argument that the bill compounds interest, would be with equal force against all judgments. Interest was always put into the judgment.
Mr. PIERCE, of Vigo, asked Mr. Johnson whether the legislation which legalized ten per cent. on contracts was not legislation in the moneyed interest?
Mr. JOHNSON was not aware of that as a fact in history. He argued at length that if ten per cent. was right on the contract, it was right that ten per cent, should come in the judgment according to the contract.
Mr. DITTEMORE demanded the previous question.
Mr. OSBORN proposed to recommit with instructions to amend with a clause, that its provisions shall not apply on contracts made prior to the passage of the act.
The SPEAKER ruled the amendment out of order.
The previous question was seconded, and the main question was ordered.
The bill passed the House of Representatives--yeas, 59; nays, 37.
[Mr. WILLIAMS, of Union, obtained leave of absence, hearing of death in his family.]
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the door keeper, asking for additional assistants, viz: one to take charge of the center door, one to take charge of coats and hats and seat visitors, one assistant postmaster, one sweeper, and one fireman.
The House then adjourned.
