HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Mr. PALMER moved ineffectually to take up the consideration of his bill [H. R. 104] to amend the 397th section of the Practice act-relative to taxation of costs.
On the motion of Mr. STEWART, of Rush, the House took up the consideration of bills on the third reading.
THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.
Mr. Overmyer's bill [H. R. 24] entitled a bill to regulate the standing of the Medical Profession, declaring who may practice Medicine in its various departments, and providing penalties for its violation, was taken up.
It proposes to make it unlawful for any person to practice medicine in this "State who has not attended two full courses of instruction and graduated at some school of medicine, and is not a person of good moral character" except where such "person has been continually in the practice of medicine for a period of ten years or more," &c. Penalty for first violation: A fine not leas than $50 nor more; than $100,and for a second violation imprisonment in the county jail for thirty days in addition to the fine.
Practitioners shall be licensed by a Board of Censors "appointed by a duly incorporated State Medical Society or as ciation, and the full name of such person shall be registered in the office of the Re corder of the county in which such person resides or proposes to practice," &c.
On the 12th of February last, a select committee composed of Messrs. Jump Breckinridge, Hutchings, Baker and Furnas, to whom was referred this bill and that introduced by Mr. Vater, reported a substitute amendment embracing the provisions above described.
Mr. VATER said, in this bill there was an effort to embody the best features of both bills.
The final vote on the last reading resulted-yeas 53, nays 15-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Admire, Barnett, Barritt Bates, Beatty, Breckinridge, Chittenden, Coffroth, Cotton, Davidson, Dittemore, Dunn,Fair-child, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Fuller. Gilham, Hall, Higboo, Hutchings, Johnston, Parke, Kercheval, Lamborn, Long, Mason, Mc-Bride, McDonald, Miles, Miner, Mitchell, Monroe, Osborn, Overmyer, Palmer, Pierce of Porter, Ruddell, Sabin, Shoaff, Sleeth, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Sunman, Taber, Tebbs, Underwood, Vater, Welborn, Wile, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of Union, Wilson, Zenor and Mr. Speaker-53.
NAYS-Messrs. Carnahan, Gory, Cox, Cunningham, Davis of Elkhart, Gordon, Hamilton, Johnson of Marshall, Logan, Miller, Montgomery, Neff, Smith, Williams of Knox, and Williams of St. Joseph-15.
So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
On motion of Mr. WILDMAN, the vote for the order for the consideration of bills on the third reading was reconsidered and an order was adopted for the consideration of bills of the House on the second reading.
BLACKFORD'S REPORTS.
Mr. Osborn's s bill [H. R. 61] to encourage the republication of Blackford's Reports, (with the amendments thereto,) was taken up.
On motion of Mr. Coffroth, (stating that the House has heretofore evinced indifference and opposition to this proposition,) was indefinitely postponed.
UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS.
Mr. Osborn's bill [H. R. 209] to define certain offences, to prescribe punishment therefor; to suppress the usurpations of the functions of the Judiciary in the punishment of real or pretended offences, (making such unlawful combinations punishable as felonies as well as combinations a conspiracies to take prisoners out of custody of officers of the law, punishable with imprisonment in the State Prison no less than one nor more than fourteen page: 109[View Page 109] years,) was taken up, read and ordered to be engrossed.
RIGHT OF ACTION.
Mr. Johnston of Parke's bill [H. R. 234] declaratory of the meaning of sections 14 and 16 of the act regarding landlords, tenants, lessors and lessees, approved March 4, 1852, and to authorize and give a right of action by one joint tenant, tenant in common or tenant in coparcenary, and to recover rents for use and occupancy of land from such tenant in possession, was taken up and ordered to the engrossment.
RECORD EVIDENCE, ETC.
Mr. Willson's bill [H. R. 80] declaring that the record of judgment and sheriffs deed shall be sufficient evidence prima facie to establish title to real estate sold 'under a sheriff sale on execution, and providing that such sale shall not be adjudged void or set aside on account of the failure of the sheriff to sell in parcels, was taken up with the amendment reported from the Judiciary Committee, striking out the second section, with reference to the failure to sell in parcels.
The amendment was concurred in and so the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
MUNICIPAL BANK TAXATION.
Mr. Vater's bill [H. R. 219] to amend section 9 of the act to provide for the assessment and collection of taxes on the shares of stock owned in banks and banking associations doing business in this State, approved March 6, 1807, [proposing to insert these words: "this act shall be so construed as to authorize and apply to the taxation of all private, State or National Banks or Banking Associations, for municipal purposes,"] was taken up and ordered to be engrossed.
REAL ESTATE TAXES IN CITIES AND TOWNS.
Mr. Wile's bill [H. R. 153] to repeal all laws providing that not more than five acres shall be subject to taxation within a city, and to make all property subject to State and county taxation within a city subject to taxation for city purposes, was taken up with the amendments reported from the Committee on Cities and Towns-to include towns as well as cities in its provisions.
Mr. COFFROTH said he really did not Know how far, or whether this bill is altogether right. There was authority in the general law by which the authorities of cities and towns can extend their jurisdiction almost as they please; but they should hardly take in farms and tax them as city Property. And might it not be, if this bill Passes, that they can extend their limits all over the county if they please, and tax them? How far that is right, gentlemen living in cities could tell perhaps better than he, whose residence was in but a respectable town.
Mr. WELBORN. The people of his city and of the neighboring town of Mount Vernon wanted this bill to pass for the reason that a few rich men with lands in the heart of town are exempt from taxation. As to the supposed objection, he considered that the power given to the little towns to extend their limits was well enough guarded to prevent difficulty in that respect. The Common Council could not do any great injury as he understood the law, although he had not observed the working of the law in this regard, living, as he does, in a city controlled by a special charter. But he knew perhaps half a dozen cases in Mount Vernon which made it desirable there that this bill should pass. He had known something of the workings of the general law in that place. And he did not think the powers granted in this bill could work any harm. For if they take in my farm they have got to improve; and it was only a question with sensible men whether they will gain anything by the taxation above the costs of improvements. He did not think we need be afraid of the passage of this bill, for he knew many cases where men are reaping large benefits by holding tracts of valuable land exempt from taxation.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, said he would like to move to strike from the bill all that relates to towns-the amendment recommended by the committee.
Mr. OSBORN had very serious objections to the bill, and thought he could show where it would work great hardships. While it seemed to be intended only to raise taxes, there was another way in which it would operate. Under the general law-section 35-cities and towns have jurisdiction for two miles around, for the purpose of exercising a kind of police regulation. And it had been held in one case in his county, that that law could not be enforced; that no city has a just right to extend its jurisdiction beyond its limits; for, if it could, such a city as New Albany could extend its jurisdiction into the city of Louisville and the city of Jeffersonville. Therefore these city jurisdictions, instead of being extended, ought to be confined to their specific limits. It was proposed by the general law, simply to extend jurisdiction over unoccupied territory, to abate annoyances. So far the jurisdiction and control might be well enough. But this bill enables them to tax; and as the gentleman from Huntington (Mr. Coffroth) had suggested, it would be giving them power, and getting them into the way of taxing farms and farm lands not at all connected with the cities. He considered this a serious objection to the bill. And there was the city of Terre Haute, which had attached a whole section-the 16th section. page: 110[View Page 110] He thought that not only towns ought to be stricken out of its provisions, but that the whole bill ought to be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Parke, read from the statute, showing that exemption from taxation does not apply to any tract of land within the city limits exceeding twenty acres. While he considered the bill might not be right in all respects, it might be amended so as to make it acceptable. He referred to the injustice of the law which exempts the larger tracts from taxation altogether. If a man holds twenty-one acres he is exempt. But if he holds only nineteen, or even twenty, he is taxed for town purposes. There was no equity in this. But if a man has over twenty acres he should be taxed for twenty acres if not for the excess. He denied that towns can extend their limits at pleasure. It takes a previous application to the County Board upon petition, and the case has to he tried; and they have to show good reason for the extension. In view of the fact that the law as it now stands is deficient as to the provisions for taxing real estate in incorporated towns, and believing as he did that the bill is deficient-that it will not apply the needed remedy-he would prefer that it be referred to a special committee of five members. He then read the law which applies to the extension of town limits-the Trustees to present petition to the County Board, accompanying the same with a map, etc., verified by affidavit; to give thirty days' notice; to serve a copy on the owners of such territory, and then the case may be tried by the County Board. He insisted that by referring the subject to a committee of five, a bill might be framed that would be acceptable to the people.
Mr. VATER. This bill gave no new power in regard to extending these city limits. A man who has over five acres within the limits should be just as liable to taxation as other land holders. A man who has five acres and a fine house-land set with shrubbery, used for agricultural or horticultural purposes-he could not see why a man who has five acres, or upwards, should be exempt from taxation, while a man who owns forty feet is not. He knew at least one case where a man owns such a tract, and raises shrubbery and flowers, worth thousands of dollars, and he is not taxed. He spoke of these cases in cities, and he thought this abuse was equally applicable to the towns.
Mr. ZOLLARS said there were men in his section controlling millions of property who are thus exempt from taxes. The consequence was that poor men pay their taxes. He would favor the bill along with the power to extend the city limits. For whenever you build a new street or sewer whenever you make any public improvement-it was for the advantage of the adjoining farm. He had not examined the bill very particularly; but if there was any only thing the cities need more than another it is this very law.
Mr. WILLSON. The only objection to the bill was, that cities and towns may extend their limits and take in adjoining farms; but the objection was not a good I one, because of one fact: Because this extension must be made upon the order of the I County Commissioners. And from such decision parties have the right of appeal to : the courts. They would not extend their jurisdiction without good cause. The proposed commitment of the bill would be equivalent to its defeat, and if the gentleman from Parke could point out its defects; he thought that the proper amendments ! could be applied at once by the House.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Parke, disclaimed any desire to delay the bill. He merely wanted to amend it so that we can tax up to the twenty acres, and exempt the excess.
Mr. WILLSON. The bill provides that all property in the cities taxed for State and county purposes, shall be taxed for municipal purposes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That was the very thing I he wanted to revise.
The motion (Mr. Johnson's) prevailed, and the bill was referred to a select committee of five.
THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. COTTON rose to a question of privilege. He desired to have the General Appropriation bill recalled from the Senate for a correction in the enrollment. He had learned that the House amendment making the appropriation of $2,000 for the boiler and engine room for the Northern Prison had been enrolled as an appropriation for a boiler room and engine house for the House of Refuge.
The SPEAKER. The Chair understands that the House amendments to that bill have been concurred in, and the bill returned, the Senate receding and concurring in the amendments.
Mr. OSBORN. This was merely a clerical error, which the House has the right to correct. He was just informed by a Senator, that the item of appropriation occur? in connection with the House of Refuge instead of the Northern Prison.
The SPEAKER. The Chair was informed here, that the bill does not show any such error.
Mr. DITTEMORE. The error is, that the bill as returned from the Senate, does not show that we struck out $5000 and inserted $2000. ["Consent, Consent."]
On motion of Mr. SABIN, the matter was page: 111[View Page 111] referred to a special committee, Messrs. Sabin, Vater, and Osborn.
JUSTICES' JURISDICTION.
On motion of Mr. WILSON, Mr. Williams of Knox's bill [H. R.31] to amend section 9 of the act of 1852 providing for the election and qualification of Justices of the Peace, was taken up, with the Judiciary Committee's amendment thereto, limiting the jurisdiction to the Township, (instead of the County, as in the original bill,) and providing, that, "in all cases where the debt sued on does not exceed twenty-five dollars, it shall be lawful to bring an action in the Township where the debt was contracted, irrespective of the residence of the defendant in said county, provided the same is in the county of the defendant's residence."
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter. As far as he understood from the reading, this would extend the Justices' jurisdiction in criminal cases.
The SPEAKER caused the section to be Again read, and the text gives express limitation "in civil cases."
Mr. ODELL moved to strike out "twenty-five" and insert ""fifty" in lieu.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, moved to indefinitely postpone the whole thing.
Mr. DUNN. One of the objections to the original bill was, that it gave a party the right to sue out of the county, and the committee put in a limitation to the county. Another objection was that the amount was too large, and it was thought proper, in this proposed extension, to give the Justice of the Peace jurisdiction over no more than $25. What did this bill propose to do? It proposed that any merchant who may reside in a town or a city, if John Doe tomes down to him from one of the outer townships and purchases three dollars worth of goods on credit, that, instead of employing an attorney to go to John Doe in his own township and collect that three dollars, the merchant may have his action against John Doe where the debt was contracted. But so long as we have no such law as this, the consequence is that accounts of this kind are not collected are standing out all over the State. It had been said that the bill will work hardships on the farmers and the masses. He contended that it is no hardship to require a man to fulfill his contracts. The bill was simply to allow the creditor in town to enforce his rights against the debtor living in the country. There was a legal maxim: "It is to the interest of the Republic that there be an end of litigation," and you are carrying out this maxim when you Pass this bill; for, instead of riding fifteen fifteen miles to litigate a case where only two or three dollars is involved, you give the account to a constable and there is an end of it.
Mr. ZOLLARS-What was the limit in in the bill!
Mr. DUNN. Twenty-five dollars. That was to give strength to the bill. But he contended that the bill is right in principle. If the farmer sees proper to go fifteen miles and buy a few pounds of coffee on credit, I insist that, if he will not come in and pay that debt, the merchant should have the right to call him to answer his complaint where the debt was contrated.
Mr. GORDON said he should vote for the indefinite postponement of the bill for two or three reasons. In the first place (said he), I hold that it is proper for a Legislative Assembly to legislate so that the credit system will be abolished as far as possible; but the result of this bill will be to facilitate the credit system. The merchant or trader, knowing that he could sue in his own township, would give more credits. Another reason why he should oppose the bill was, that in all our townships we have Justices of the Peace; and it is very difficult to get men that are competent to act as Justices of the Peace in the outer townships; and the operation of this bill will be to take away most of the business from these Justices in the outer townships. He was opposed to the bill for yet another reason. It will increase the amount of costs in these petty cases. The constable will have to go to the residence of the debtor, and tax his mileage against him. Whereas now the constables m the towns get little or no mileage.
Mr. DAVIDSON was in favor of the bill as it now stands. He could see nothing in it that is going to work unfairly. If the poor man can come from the outer townships and ask the dealer to credit him;-it was very clear that the merchant wants custom, and is not apt to process a man without cause, or until his patience is worn out. Then the bill says that when he is forced to sue on these small accounts he shall not be compelled to go to the township of the debtor to collect a few dollars-he shall not be compelled to spend more time than his debt is worth in the collection. It was certainly doing but simple justice to give the creditor this advantage. He would not have the limitation extended beyond $25, because if the amount were over $25 the creditor could afford to go out and collect his debt under the law as it now stands.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM would oppose the bill because it would encourage litigation and would take away the business of the Justices of the Peace in the outer townships.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Parke. I can see no impropriety in allowing a man to sue in page: 112[View Page 112] a township where the debt is contracted up to the amount where he can get jurisdiction in the Common Pleas. Up to that amount the Justice may safely have jurisdiction. If the merchant now has an account amounting to $51 he sues in the Common Pleas Court, and taxes his debtor in double the amount of costs that might have accrued before a Justice of the Peace. If such a debt is contracted in a town for goods, I say it is right that the Justice of the Peace shall have jurisdiction to collect in the township where it is contracted. There is no justice in compelling the merchant or mechanic to go into the outer townships to collect these small debts.
On the motion of Mr. COFFROTH, the further consideration of the bill was postponed, and it was made the special order for Tuesday at 2 o'clock.
Mr. COFFROTH, obtaining leave for the purpose, reported back the Savings Bank bill, with the recommendation of the special committee thereon.
Mr. OSBORN, obtaining leave, returned the bill [S. 239] to authorize the classification of Boards of Directors of Railroad Companies, with the recommendation that it pass by the Special Railroad Committee.
Mr. WILDMAN called up his bill [H. R. 79] to provide for the erection and repair of bridges, with the favorable report thereon, reported from the Committee on Roads.The bill proposes to place bridge matters in the hands of the Township Trustees, with a provision that their erection may be compelled by the Township Trustees, and that no one bridge shall cost more than $1,500.
Mr. WILDMAN moved that the report of the Committee on Roads be concurred in. As the law now stands the County Commissioners have direetionary power; but you can not compel them to build a bridge. By this bill, you can compel them. And the amendment of the bill gives a discretion to the Township Trustees to contribute to the erection of bridges out of the Township Fund.
Mr. McFADIN thought this would be giving too much power to the township trustees. This bridge question always regulates itself. And he feared that under this amendment there might be undue influences brought to bear upon the township trustees to build bridges unnecessarily, where they are not wanted.
Mr. WILDMAN. It gives the township trustees power to make apropriations out of any money, except the School fund. But they can t appropriate more than $1,500 to make a bridge.
The Committee's amendment was agreed to-affirmative 33, negative 20-no quorum voting.
Mr. CORY and others making t point against doing business without & quorum, and other members desirous of an adjournment-
Mr. COFFROTH desired to make an explanation with regard to the failure to enroll the House amendment to the General Appropriation bill reducing the appropriation to the North Prison improvement from $5,000 to $2,000. He said the amendment was not sent up in writing, and therefore it was no fault of the Clerk that there is no record of the amendment. The Clerk found nothing among the papers to direct his attention to the amendment. He said this as an act of justice to the Clerk-that he may not be placed in a false light in this matter.
On motion of Mr. WILSON the House adjourned till Tuesday morning at 9 o'clock.
