THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, January 26, 1869.The Senate met at nine o'clock, a. m.--Hon. John R. Cravens, President, pro tem., in the Chair.
The Secretary's journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and corrected.
PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, &C.
Mr. DENBO pnesented a petition concerning jurors fees.
It was referred to the Committee on County and Township Business without reading.
Mr. STEIN presented a petition praying for the establishment of suitable prisons for women.
It was referred to the Committee on Prisons.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. CAVEN, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill [S. 73] amending the three hundred and fifty-second section of the practice act, recommending that it lie on the table.
Also, the bill [S. 79] concerning heirs of decedents' estates with the same recommendation. In explanation, he remarked that the change proposed was a radical one, making great inroads upon the present system and completely revolutionizing it. It was evidently taken from the law of some other State, being in print as though cut from a book.
These reports were concurred in.
Mr. RICE, from the same Committee, returned the bill [S. 88] amending section three hundred and nineteen of the General Practice Act of June 18, 1852, with a similar recommendation.
Mr. WOLCOTT said this bill had been introduced by him, having been prepared by a law firm in the north part of the State, of acknowledged ability. He had consulted, before introducing it, with the Senator from Tippecanoe, (Mr. Stein,) who thought some such action as that proposed in this bill was necessary. He was not, himself, so familiar with the practice as to make an explanation easy to him, and he trusted the Senator would do so in his stead. His understanding was, that under the section as it now stands, some cases, known as the old chancery cases, can not be tried by oral testimony, but it must be by depositions. It is now proposed to have them tried by oral testimony, when written depositions can not be conveniently had. He hoped the report would not be concurred in.
Mr. STEIN believed that the bill possessed merits, and it might be well to have it more fully discussed.
The Senate refused to concur in the Committee report. *
Mr. CAVEN, from the same committee returned the bill [H. R. 7] authorizing foreign guardians to sue, etc., for property of their wards in this State, with a favorable report.
Also, the bill [S. 22] regulating interest on judgments and decrees, recommending that it lie on the table as the provisions are embodied in the bill [H. R.14.]
These reports were severally concurred in, except in the instance named.
PAY OF CLERKS.
Mr. WOLCOTT offered a resolution declaring the pay of Committee Clerks to be five dollars per day under the provisions of the appropriation bill already passed.
Mr. WOLCOTT explained that the appropriation bill passed does not fix the pay of clerks of committees and this resolution was
* The Clerk's journal is incorrect.
page: 175[View Page 175] for that purpose. It would be remembered that the Finance Committee, when reporting the bill back to the Senate, stated that it was not perfect, but that it contained a provision under which the pay of those not provided for by the general law, could be fixed by joint resolution.Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, moved to amend by striking out five and inserting three.
Mr. WOLCOTT thought such discrimination would he unjust, and that no man properly qualified to discharge the duties required, could do so on that pay.
Mr. BELLAMY said the object seemed to be to give the clerkships exclusively to men living in Indianapolis, by fixing the pay at so small a sum that persons could not afford to come here from a distance and take them. He thought that when we had an opportunity of favoring our friends for work done in the canvass or for other reasons they should be well paid. He moved to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. Bellamy's motion to lay the amendment on table was agreed to by yeas, 19, nays, 18.
Mr. FISHER moved to strike out five and Insert four dollars.
The amendment was agreed to.
The resolution was then adopted.
BILLS FOR ACTS
Were introduced, read the first time, and appropriately referred to Committees, to-wit:
By Mr. GRAY [S. 109] to amend section even of an act approved March 4, 1863, providing compensation to owners of animals killed by railroads, etc.
It was referred to the Committee on Corporations.
By Mr. HOWK [S. 110] to create the twenty-fourth Judicial Circuit--the counties of Floyd and Clark--a Criminal Court in each.
It was referred to the Committee on Organisation of Courts of Justice.
By Mr. HADLEY [S. 1ll] to amend section sixteen of the Supervisor of Highway's act, approved March 5, 1859.
It was referred to the Committee on Road.
By Mr. LASSELLE [S. 112] to revise and amend section one of the property exemption act of February 17, 1852.
It was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
By Mr. KINLEY [S. 113] providing for the registration of the practicing physicians of this State. [Shall procure a permit from a county officer; providing for their registry with the Auditor of State; paying a fee of five dollars, to go as a physicians fund to support medical associations, etc., and for a penalty for practicing without a certificate.]
It was referred to a special committee to consist of the physicians in the Senate, viz: Messrs. Kinley, Gifford, Hess, Armstrong, Humphries and Sherrod.
By Mr. CAVEN [S. 114] amending section nineteen of the act relating to the fees of officers, approved March 2, 1855.
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HOWK [S. 115] amending the forty-ninth section of the highway act of June 17, 1852, as amended by an act of March 9, 1861.
It was referred to the committee on County and Township Business.
DECEDENT'S ESTATES.
The bill [H. R. 10] (with the Senate amendments thereto, proposed by a committee.) amending section forty-three, of the decedent a estate act, approved June 17, 1852, coming up in the order of the day, was read a second time, and passed to the third reading.
Mr. BRADLEY moved to take from the table and place the abandoned Railroad amendment bill [S. 5] on the files.
The motion was agreed to.
NATIONAL FINANCES.
Mr. WOLCOTT moved that all questions relating to the finances of the country be referred to a joint committee of five, two from the House and three from the Senate, and that the Senate Committee on Finance be discharged from the consideration of the subject.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. made the Committee to consist of Messrs. Wolcott, Fisher and Jobnston of Montgomery, on the part of the Senate.
MEMORIAL.
Mr. HUGHES, by unanimous consent, presented the memorial of James Morris, Isaac Reed, George W. Deuson and James C. Saunders, claiming to have been sent to the southern penitentiary by the Common Pleas Court of Monroe county, on the 15th of August, 1865, on a charge of felony, said court having no jurisdiction in such cases, where they remained upwards of two years before their discharge could be obtained. They ask compensation to the amount of four thousand two hundred dollars for their work during that time.
It was referred to the Committee on Claims.
TEXAS CATTLE.
Mr. WOOD offered a resolution, which was adopted, that a special committee of three be appointed to inquire what legislation, if any, is necessary or expedient to prevent the importation of Texas cattle.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. made the committee to consist of Messrs. Wood, Wolcott and Bellamy.
page: 176[View Page 176]HARBOR AT MICHIGAN CITY.
On motion of Mr. BRADLEY the joint resolution [S. 4] asking for Congressional appropriation to finish the harbor at Michigan City, was taken up.
It was passed by the Senate by yeas 42; nays 0.
FEES AND SALARIES.
On motion by Mr. CARSON the bill [S. 66] to repeal an act to ascertain the amount of fees received by county officers, was taken up.
Mr. CASON moved to recommit the bill [S. 66] to a select committee of five with instructions to report the same back to the Senate with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed, and in lieu thereof that the committee inquire into the propriety of amending the original act so as to secure a ready compliance with its provisions, and enforce the same by declaring the office of any person violating its provisions in failing to report the fees, perquisites and emoluments, as required by said act, vacant, and providing for the appointment of a person to fill such vacancy.
Mr. CARSON said this bill has been on the statute book since J861, and it has been complied with only by a small portion of county officers, though it has a penalty affixed for its violation. The Legislature should not consent to a law being thus treated by officials. It provides for fine and the vacation of the office where is a failure to report, but no one executes the law and it is a dead letter. From the report of the County Auditor of Allen county, he finds there has been paid to officers in 1807 some seven or eight thousand dollars in fees, paid out of the County Treasury, and about the same amount was paid to the Sheriff alone. Let the law be enforced by the Auditor of State, declaring the office vacant if the officer does not comply with the provisions of the Jaw. County officers treat the Legislature too much as though it was a mere machine; and we often, he feared, lose sight of our duty to the people, to favor them. They treat Legislators very much as their agents, to do what they desire them to, and county officers claim to have more influence than Legislators. They now demand a repeal of this law, and he was in favor of having it enforced in some way.
Mr. RICE was not aware of such great dereliction of duty as represented. In a majority of the counties in this State, fees and salaries are as well regulated as they can be by the Legislature. In large counties and cities it may be different. The Sheriff of his county-- an average county--does not make enough to pay him for the labor and trouble he goes through with, and it is the same with the Re-corder. The Treasurer, Auditor and Clerk, perhaps, get a fair compensation. He was credibly informed that in larger towns and cities, there ought to be a reform in this particular, and he would favor it, but he did not see that the existence of this law remedied the matter.
Mr. CARSON asked how the information wanted could be obtained otherwise.
Mr. RICE replied that the law had been set at defiance for eight or nine years, and unless it could be made more efficient, would be of no value.
Mr. FISHER remarked that the law was not sufficiently explicit concerning the fees allowed-- surely there needs something--an amendment, probably--to the law fixing fees and salaries. The pay of the Treasurer of one of his counties for disbursements, as allowed by the County Commissioners, is the same as lor receipts, while in another county the Treasurer receives nothing for disbursements, Both can not be right and legal. This matter should be made plain, so no one can misunderstand what is the law and justice in the case.
Mr. KINLEY was also satisfied that there is something wrong about this law, for it is not complied with. He desired to see something done to enforce compliance with the law now on our statute book, and was anxious to vote correctly, but did not know how to get at it. He knew that in some large counties, such as Wayne, Alien and Marion, it is said the officers are receiving very large sums. He did not know how to find out about it unless by this bill, and he must vote for the resolution.
Mr. CARSON sail his object was to find out the existing facts, and then see what could be done, or ascertain whether officers can set the laws at defiance. His resolution was to declare that a law now on the statute book should be complied with. He was informed that the Clerk of Allen county was drawing nine dollars a day, three dollars a day for each of the three courts, Circuit, Criminal and Common Pleas, all in session at the same lime. His resolution does not propose to fix the fees and salaries, but only to find out what they are in the several counties of the State.
Mr. HUMPHREYS reiterated what he said yesterday, that the information sought for by this bill was given to the Legislature of 1863, but no action was had by the General Assembly on it. But instead of cutting down the fees some have since been increased. He desired something done, however, which would make the report less voluminous; and unless the law is changed in this respect it will be quite impossible for officers to fully comply with its requirements. He desired to see the law amended or repealed, and was page: 177[View Page 177] willing to see this bill recommitted as the resolution contemplates.
Mr. GRAY favored the passage of the resolutions. It is due to the tax-payers that the law should be enforced.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT pro tem. makes the Committee to consist of Messrs. Carson, Scott, Howk, Jaquess and Fisher.
And then--
The Senate took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate was called to order at two o'clock by the President pro tem.
Mr. RICE offered a resolution, which was adopted, that when the Senate adjourn it adjourn to meet to-morrow at two o'clock p. m.
He did this in order to give the committees time to work.
Mr. GREEN desired to get at the bill [H. R. 8] concerning the appointment of appraisers' deputies, etc., which was passed the other day. He wanted to see it amended, but as it has received the signature of the Speaker of the House, he did not understand exactly how to retrace the legislative steps.
NATIONAL FINANCES.
Mr. WOLCOTT moved to reconsider the rote of this morning authorizing the appointment of a Joint Committee on National Finances.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WOLCOTT offered a concurrent resolution as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the State of Indiana, (the House of Representatives concurring,) That a joint committee to consist of three Senators and five Representatives, be appointed to take into consideration joint resolutions five and six, as introduced and amended in the Senate, on the subject of national finances, and that the Senate committee report to the General Assembly such action as in the opinion of such committee the General Assembly should rake on the subjects so referred.
The resolution was adopted, and the PRESIDENT pro tem. appointed Messrs. Wolcott, Fisher and Johnston, of Montgomery, said Committee on the part of the Senate.
Mr. GRAY moved to take from the table the bill [S. 72] amending section eighteen of the law of descents, approved May 14, 1852.
The motion was agreed to.
On his further motion the bill was recommitted to the Judiciary Committee; Mr. Gray saying that the amendment proposed gives to the widow having no children by a previous marriage, the right to alienate real estate with the consent of her husband.
Mr. ANDREWS presented a petition, for protection against Railroad combinations, which was referred to the Committee on Corporations without reading.
A communication from the managers of the Soldier's Home inviting members to visit the Home next Saturday, was read.
On motion of Mr. KINLEY the invitation was accepted.
Leaves of absence were granted to Messrs.. Jaquess, Lee and Johnson, of Spencer, until Monday next.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. FISHER, from the Committee on Printing, to which was referred the resolution concerning the printing of one hundred copies of Quartermaster General Stone's reports, reported a recommendation that the Quartermaster General's report be printed in the documentary journal only.
Mr. FlSHER also made a report from the same committee recommending that two hundred copies of the report of the Trustees of the Wabash & Erie canal be printed for the use of the Senate.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Spencer, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges returned the bill [S. 75] to elevate the standard ot the medical profession, recommending its passage.
Mr. HUFFMAN, from the same same committee, returned the bill [S. 86] for the protec- of growing fruit trees, with a recommendation that it lie on the table.
These reports were severally concurred in.
Mr. RICE, by direction of the Committee on Corporations, offered a resolution, which was adopted, that the committee be allowed to employ a clerk.
BILLS FOR ACTS
Were introduced, read the first time and referred to appropriate committees, viz:
By Mr.CARSON [S. 116] to prohibit any County Commissioner from acting in any other capacity under or by virtue oi appointment of said Commissioners.
By Mr. JAQUESS [S. 117] to amend section five, of the common school law.
By Mr. RICE [S. 118] to amend the sixteenth section of the contested election law to correct a misprint.
By Mr. HOWK [S. 119] to fix the times for holding court in the Fourth Common Pleas District.
By Mr. KINLEY [S. 120] to provide for the government and discipline of the State prisons and the oversight of county jails. (It accords with the recommendations of the meeting on prison reform.) Referred to the Committee on Prisons, and two hundred copies ordered to be printed.
Mr. KINLEY presented a communication from Charles Coffin, accepting the invitation to address the Legislature, and naming the 29th of this month as the time.
page: 178[View Page 178]Mr. STEIN, by leave, reported from the Committee on Rights and Privileges the bill [S. 15] for repeal of the fish law, recommending that it lie on the table. The report was concurred in; but subsequently this vote was reconsidered, and the report was withdrawn. The Committee had agreed to recommend its passage, and the report was wrongly made out.
SENATE BILLS ON THE SECOND READING.
Mr. Caven's bill [S. 24] amending section seventy eight of the Practice Act, was read the second time. The Committee amendment was agreed to, and the bill ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. Caven's bill [S. 25] concerning witnesses and their examination in criminal actions, was read the second time and passed to the third reading.
Mr. Turner's bill [S. 29] amending section seventy of the act for the election of justices of the peace, etc., was read the second time and passed the third reading.
SALARIES OF JUDGES.
Mr. Scott's bill, [S. 45] allowing to Supreme Judges a salary of four thousand dollars, Circuit and Criminal three thousand dollars and Common Pleas two thousand dollars, being read the second time--
Mr. CARSON moved to recommit the bill with instructions to strike out the first two gums, leaving the two salaries as they now are three thousand and two thousand dollars. Under the present state of financial affairs the people are not able to increase the salaries and this is not a time to increase the burdens of the people. The amount of delinquent taxes last year ran up to about two million dollars.
Mr. KINLEY moved to amend the instructions by increasing the salaries of Common Pleas Judges to two thousand dollars--not effecting the others.
Mr. CARSON accepted the amendment, as a substitute for his motion.
Mr. STEIN spoke in behalf of the now poorly paid Judges. From the first he favored the bill. Of all public servants the judiciary are the most meritorious, poorest paid, hardest working, and least complaining while they are the most helpless of any. They are hard working, and occupy a position where ability is required. There was not a lawyer within the sound of his voice who would not say the present pay is inadequate. We are quite willing to squander money in the administrative department, where the requirements are not great, but in the judicial, where extensive and long experience at the bar is demanded, we make an exceedingly parsimonious display. They are inadequately paid for their services; and it is not the desire of the people that their judges should be turned off in this way--they are willing to be taxed in order to have a good judiciary. We now propose to elevate the independence of the judiciary--a thing BO very essential to the office. No lawyer of any standing or practice is justified in retiring from the bar upon the present salary. He was for elevating the independence--he would not say the standard of requirements--for he was disposed to be liberal with this most meritorious class.
Mr. GRAY moved to amend the instructions by making the salary of the Supreme Judges three thousand five hundred, of the Circuit Judges two thousand five hundred, of the Common Pleas Judges two thousand. There should not be more than five hundred dollars difference between the Circuit and Common Pleas Judges, for reasons which he gave. The former do not have to pay from their own salaries judges who occupy the bench when they are sick or absent, but the latter do.
Mr. STEIN said it was generally known that a meeting of the judges of the State was held here at about the time of the opening of the Legislature, and that the amounts proposed in the bill were agreed upon at that time. They are not a rapacious nor grasping class of men, and he thought their request was entitled to respect.
Mr. GRAY said he had understood that such a meeting was held, but that no common Pleas Judges were present, and that they did not regard the salaries proposed as equitable.
Mr. HANNA thought the bill should not have gone to the Judiciary Committee in the first place, but to the Committee on the Organization of Courts. He knew that the salaries had been too low in the past. He thought it should go to the committee without instructions, and if that committee would recommend an increase he would cheerfully vote for it.
Mr. SCOTT hoped the request of Mr. Hanna might be granted. He thought it should go to them untrammeled. He suggested, also, that a proposition was pending to increase the docket fees so that they will pay the entire amount of the increase proposed in salaries, and the committee should consider that fact in this connection.
Mr. KINLEY would, with the consent of the Senator from Allen, [Mr. Carson,] withdraw his motion.
Mr. CARSON consented, and the bill was referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts without instructions.
BILLS ORDERED ENGROSSED.
Mr. Denbo's bill [S. 51] amending section nine, and repealing part of section sixteen of the act approved May 20, 1852, concerning page: 179[View Page 179] the partition of lands, etc., was read the second time and passed to the third reading.
Mr. Scott's bill [S. 55] creating the twenty-third Judicial Circuit, etc., establishing a Criminal Court in the county of Vigo, was read the second time and passed to the third reading.
Mr. Case's bill [S. 56] amending sections one hundred and thirty-three and one hundred and thirty-four of the'act of June 17, 1852, concerning decedents' estates, was read the second time, with a committee amendment thereto. The amendment was agreed to and the bill passed to the third reading.
JURORS FEES.
Mr. Denuo's bill [S. 58] amending section sixteen of the officers fee act, approved March 2,1855, refering to jurors fees, was read the second time, with a committee amendment thereto.
Mr. FISHER thought the bill was about doubling the fees of jurors, and that was too much of an increase. He moved to strike out two dollars and a half, and insert two dollars per diem.
Mr. GREEN opposed the amendment. Two dollars and a half was not too much. The low price paid to jurors has created a class of professional jurors, who hang around every Court house.
Mr. CARSON. The present rate allowed jurors is one dollar and a quarter a day, and a pretty considerable sum is paid in some counties, even at that rate. He considered it a fair compensation, but the increase proposed in the bill was too much. He spoke in favor of retrenchment, as the people were taxed enough under the present law.
Mr. WOLCOTT moved to amend the amendment by making the per diem one dollar and a half. The increase of pay might also increase the class of professional jurors.
This amendment to the amendment was rejected, by yeas 0, nays 41.
The amendment was then agreed to.
On motion of Mr. CARSON, the constitutional restriction was dispenses with--ayes 42, nays 0--the bill was read the third time, an emergency clause was added by consent, and the bill was finally passed the Senate by ayes 41, nays 0.
Mr. Caven's bill [S. 69] regulating changes of venue, attendance of witnesses in criminal case?, etc., was read the second time.
On motion of Mr. CAVEN, it was recommitted to the Judiciary Committee, that it might considered together with another bill embodying the same provisions.
Mr. Wolcott's bill [S. 64] concerning title to cemeteries, was read the second time and passed to the third reading.
Mr. Humphrey's bill [S. 67] amending section five of the township business act of February 18, 1859, was read the second time and passed to the third reading.
HORSE THIEF DETECTIVES.
Mr. Beardsley's bill [S. 68] amending section one of the act for the formation of Horse Thief Detective Associations, approved March 9, 1862, being read the second time--
Mr. HUGHES moved to indefinitely postpone the bill. Such bills are a violation of the fundamental principles of government the incorporation of companies to execute the laws. We might as well incorporate companies to hold courts or perfect titles. Sometimes such organizations become bands of regulators. The Governor in his message speaks pretty strongly of the organization in Jackson county. He did not know that he would go quite so far himself, as where the authorities fail to do their duty, the people will themselves execute the law. The same principle would incorporate a company to hang the Reno's. As a logical consequence of such bills, the Jackson county folks should be incorporated. He did not deny that municipal government fails in many instances to meet the ends of justice, but rather than pass such bills, let us strengthen the governments. The Jackson County affair is a living testimony of the inefficiency of government, and the uprising of that principle which impels the people to take care of themselves where the government fails to give the protection necessary. He did not deny that the government fails in many instances to answer the ends of justice. But let us strengthen it rather than go outside for assistance. He did not have anything to say concerning the actions of any of the men composing these organizations, but he believed that the same principle carried out would lead to just such things as that seen in Jackson county. It is wrong to incorporate companies to execute the laws.
Mr. CAVEN explained that this bill did not involve the question of incorporating such companies, but only provided that the maximum number of members might be two hundred instead of one hundred. It does not involve the principle of the matter.
Mr. HUGHES said he understood that very well, but he did not intend to vote to extend the evil. He spoke at some length, tracing out the regular steps which would lead such organizations to extreme measures, while insisting that the principle of the whole thing was wrong.
Mr. CARSON remarked that the law does not propose to enforce the law, but merely to aid in the detection of thieves.
Mr. HOOPER explained that the simple object of the bill was to double the number of members now allowed these associations. This proposition came from men who were possess page: 180[View Page 180] ed of the best motives. They were farmers who knew how difficult it was to detect this class of thieves. He did not see how the principle was involved in a mere proposition to increase the number of members of a company. The object was merely in order that the expenses might be lighter upon those who have to pay them, and he could see no objection to the passage of this bill.
Mr. HUGHES insisted that he opposed the bill only on principle. The channel through which justice is to be executed is a beaten path known to every man. It is asserted and lieved by many that one half or more of our currency is printed by the Government on genuine plates, yet there are counterfeits, and is there any company incorporated to find out who makes the counterfeits? Why should we have corporations outside of the laws of the land to detect any perpetrators of crime? These organizations generally run into organized violence--regulators, etc. Does their corporate capacity give them any more rights than a private citizen? Why organize a power unknown to the law to execute the law? It is but an acknowledgement that the machinery of law and government is deficient. When we can lay our hands on these statutes we ought to repeal them all. He could not countenance such organizations, any more than similar ones for the detection of murderers and counterfeiters.
Mr. CARSON did not have such strong objections to the law as the Senator from Monroe (Mr. Hughes), although he admitted that the law was not sufficiently guarded. If confined to offering rewards and other simple provisions of that nature, he would not object.
Mr. HOOPER was of the opinion that the principles of class of laws was not really the question now before the Senate. If the law is wrong, there ought to be a proposition made for its repeal; but experience did not so show it to be. The law probably ought to be guarded better than it is.
Mr. STEIN said that whether the bill went up or down, he should have no opportunity to vote his exact sentiments. He was opposed to the organization of companies to execute the law and expressed his dissent to the proposition before the Senate. He opposed the entire principle underlying this line of legislation. An outrage can not be perpetrated in the name, and under the pretense of law; and these associations are likely to carry their privileges to an excess. He instanced a case in Benton county, where some of the members of such an organization suspected a man of making way with another who was missing, went to his house, dragged him out, and hung him up to compel him to confess. After torturing him for sometime, he did confess, in order to save his life, and was sent to jail, but the missing man turned up alive and well, and the suspected man was entirely innocent. He should vote for indefinite postponement of this bill, and for the repeal of all such laws as fast as opportunity offers.
The motion to indefinitely postpone the bill was agreed to.
Mr. Green's bill [S. 69] amending section four hundred and fifty-five of the general practice act of June 18, 1852, (concerning properly sold on execution) was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. STEIN the bill was recommitted.
On motion by Mr. CAVEN, his bill [S. 28] amending Section twenty-seven of the will act of May 31, 1852, was taken from the table and recommitted to the Judiciary Committee.
And then--
The Senate adjourned, by virtue of a resolution, till two o'clock p. m. to-morrow.
