HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, January 13, 1871.The House met at 9 o'clock A. M.--the order of prayer by the Rev. Mr. Edson, of the Second Presbyterian Church.
The journal of yesterday was read and authenticated.
BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS OF THE STATE.
A message from the Senate by a Secretary, announced the passage in that body of a concurrent resolution for the election by the concurrent vote of the two Houses of the General Assembly this afternoon at 3 o'clock, a Trustee for the Institution for the Education of the Blind, a Trustee for the Institution for the education of the Deaf and Dumb, and a Commissioner for the Hospital for the Insane.
On motion of Mr. STONE, (by unanimous consent,) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was taken up and adopted on the part of the House of Representatives.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. HARDIN presented the petition of E. R. Hatfield and others, practicing attorneys of the county of Perry, for an increase in the salary of the judges.
Mr. COGGSWELL presented the petition of James A. Simpson and others, practicing attorneys of the county of Orange, in the same matter. These petitions were referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
Mr. BALLINGER presented the following memorial, which was read:
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Indiana:
The memorial of Indiana yearly meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, by its representative meeting, held at Richmond, on the 2d of twelfth month, 1870, respectfully represents:
That as a religious society we consider marriage an ordinance of God, and not a mere civil contract, nor a mere human compact, devoid of religious obligations.
The original law of marriage, which is found in the second chapter of Genesis, describes a union, such as could originate from no mere human authority.
Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, when asked by the Pharisees, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause," re-enacted this law and ordinance for all subsequent time. "Have you not read that He which made them in the beginning, made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? What, therefore, God has joined together, let no man put asunder." Matt. xix 4-5-6. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away, committeth adultery." Matt, xix 9.
The legislation of all Christian Nations and States should be based upon Christian principles. Hence, while the civil law may, perhaps, properly solemnize the marriage contract, it can not properly dissolve it, except for the cause which the Divine Law Giver has himself pointed out.
We are advised that there are seven statutory grounds of divorce in the laws of our State:
1st. Adultery; 2d. Impotency; 3d. Abandonment for one year; 4th. Cruel treatment of either party by the other; 5th. Habitual drunkenness by either party, or the failure of the husband to provide a reasonable support for his family; 6th. The conviction of infamous crime subsequent to marriage: and, 7th, "Any other cause for which the Court shall deem it proper that a divorce shall be granted."
We respectfully submit that all these enactments, except the first, are contrary to the teachings of Christ and his Apostles; and some of them actually encourage divorce, by offering it as a premium for crime; and the 7th is unknown to "Common Law," and grants such unlimited power to the Court, that by expunging the word "other" there would seem to be no need for the six preceding specified causes for divorce.
So much shameful fraud and corruption have characterized the administration of our divorce laws, and many innocent persons have been so cruelly wronged thereby, that great odium attaches to our otherwise fair record and reputation as a State.
The inevitable tendency of such enactments is; to unsettle the belief of the people in the religious obligations of marriage, and to degrade it to a mere contract between the parties, and thus, not only to destroy the sacredness, but also its permanence. For, as divorces for trivial causes increase, marriages are lightly contracted, and as lightly-spurned; licentiousness increases, the public morals are corrupted, and the purity of society and the affections and sacredness of home are ruthlessly invaded.
We do, therefore, respectfully, but earnestly, petition your honorable bodies to repeal all the divorce laws of our State, except that which provides for a legal separation of man and wife for the crime of adultry.
LEVI JESSUP, Clerk.
It was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH presented the petition of sundry citizens of St. Joseph county, for the repeal of the corporation drainage laws; and moved that there be a standing committee of seven to consider all questions with reference to levees and drainage.
Mr. SABIN. This is a proposition to amend the rules, and must lie over.
The SPEAKER. The point is well taken; but the Chair thinks a special committee would answer as well.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH acquiesced; and the order was made for the special committee by unanimous consent.
Mr. MARTIN, of Wayne, presented the petition of R. C. Reed and forty-seven other citizens, asking for the amendment of the divorce law; which was referred to the committee on Rights and Privileges.
THE DAVIDSON-WEAKLEY CONTEST.
Mr. CAUTHORN, from a majority of the Committee on Elections, to which has been page: 86[View Page 86] referred the contest of Robert L. Davidson for the seat of Otho K. Weakley, one of the Representatives for Tippecanoe county, submitted a report in writing, in which they find at length that there was counted for the contestee [Mr. Weakly] in Perry township one vote too many, and which leave the returns a tie between the costestor and the contestee. The majority of the committee find further that on account of irregular and unlawful proceedings in certain voting precincts of the county there should be deducted 30 votes from the whole number of votes reported for the contestee, and that, therefore, Robert L. Davidson, was duly elected a Representative from the county of Tippecanoe. And, accordingly, they report a resolution that Otho K. Weekly is not entitled and that Robert L. Davidson is entitled to the seat.
Mr. WHITE for the minority of said committee submitted a report in writing, signed by himself and Mr. Sabin, finding, from facts and reasonings submitted at length, that while they are willing to throw out the over-counted vote for the contestee in Perry township, they would not be justifiable in throwing out the returns in certain townships reported by the majority as irregular. And they find that the contestee was entitled to receive eight more votes in Wayne township than were counted for him, which eight votes may be justly subject to subtraction so as to leave but three votes majority for the contestee. The minority, therefore, report a resolution that Mr. Weakley is justly entitled to his seat.
Mr. BIGGS moved the adoption of the minority report.
Mr. ST. JOHN moved a substitute that the subject be postponed and made the special order for Tuesday at 10 o'clock.
Mr. GORDON, of Boone, would like to suggest, in a matter of such importance as this, that the House should have time for reflection.
Mr. McDONALD stated that it had been several days since this matter came in, and there was no doubt but that it had been fully canvassed by every member.
Mr. WHITE thought it wiser to postpone. There were involved here very great difference of opinion even in points of evidence as well as on legal questions, even amongst members of the Committee on Elections, who have enjoyed the best opportunities for examination. And this being so, the gentleman from Whitely (Mr. McDonald) is mistaken in supposing that it has been fully canvassed.
The motion of Mr. St. John was agreed, to, and the two reports were made the special order of the day for Tuesday at 10 o'clock.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. McDONALD, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Line's bill [H. R. 41] to amend sections 3, 8, and 17 of the law relative to descents, approved May 14, 1852, with a recommendation that it lie on the table.
The report was concurred in by unanimous consent.
INTREST ON JUDGMENTS.
Mr. WILSON, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Britton's judgment interest bill [H. R. 33] with a recommendation that it lie on the table. He said it is a report in favor of the weak as against the strong.
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter. It seems that where a party has agreed to pay ten per cent. interest, there is no good reason to reduce that rate when the amount is merged into a judgment. This report is to lay on the table a bill providing that the judgment shall bear the same rate of interest as that agreed upon by the contracting parties; and certainly there is no reason, in sound common sense, why, after the contract is merged into a judgment, the judgment should not bear the same interest. True, there is a distinction made by the Supreme Court in a decision under the act of 1848, I believe, and by that we are now governed. But I may be allowed to say that I have heard the opinion expressed by sound lawyers and others that there is no good reason for this reduction of the interest in the judgment. I move that the report be laid on the table.
Mr. CAUTHORN concurred in opinion with the gentleman from Porter, that where parties make a contract there is no good reason why it should not be enforced by the judgment.
Mr. BRITTON said he had introduced the bill at the request of borrowers of money in his county who assert that the present decision debars the poorer classes from borrowing money.
Mr. RUDDELL suggested to the gentlemsn from Porter [Mr. Calkins] the parliamentary propriety of changing his motion. The motion should be that the House do not concur in the report of the committee.
Mr. CALKINS changed his motion accordingly.
Mr. SAYERS. Lenders of money always take into consideration the question whether they have to sue, and if so, they charge a higher rate of interest. I am in favor of the report.
Mr. BALLENGER. I can not believe this report is made in the interest of the weak as against the strong. I think the law as it now stands operates against the weak. Whatever makes it difficult for the loaner to get back his money makes the rate of interest higher. I think the judgment should bear the same rate of interest with the contract. It is for the interest of the borrowing class that reasonable facilities be given for the collection of debts. Whenever you render it difficult to collect money you find it difficult to borrow money. The report then is not in favor of the weak but of the strong. It is certainly to the interest of the borrower to have the law so that his contract may be enforced throughout.
Mr. CONNER. I am not at all convinced that it is to the interest or advantage of the man in doubtful financial circumstance to be a borrower of money. I am not much concerned here with the desire to throw around men better facilities for borrowing money. We may page: 87[View Page 87] find money-lenders in favor of this proposition, and they say it is for the interest of the borrower. But what constitutes these money-lenders friends of the poor man? I think it is not the province of the Legislature to say what the price of money shall be, any more than they have the right to determine the price of produce. But the unfortunates ere driven by their creditors into the courts. Then the Legislature should come in and protect the poorer class. The law as it now stands discourages litigation, and leaves contracting parties to determine matters among themselves. Therefore, I say, as a matter of policy, I am in favor of this report, and would like to see the bill laid on the table.
Mr. MYERS. I came here with special instructions to get a bill similar to this before the General Assembly; and when this was introduced here, I had one of nearly the same tenor in my hand, and was ready to introduce it. I am not a moneyed man. I wish I were. But there is a principle involved here, like that which would appear if we were to go to an insurance agent to get a policy of insurance against loss by fire. If your building is surrounded by wooden buildings, you have to pay a higher rate, or you get no policy at all. The greater the hazard, the more it costs. These risks come into all kinds of business. Gentlemen may get up a little cheap capital, with the plea that the poor man's judgment should bear only 6 per cent. But still it will remain true, that the greater the obstacles you throw into the way of the collection of debts the harder it will be for the borrower of money. In the majority of cases money is now loaned at 15 per cent., and this by men who are abundantly able to pay. Why is this? because our laws are not favorable to the collection of debts. I am here, sir, to see to the rights of all classes, including lenders as well as borrowers; and before this bill goes to its grave, I desire that it should have further discussion.
Mr. NEFF. When it dies I will preach its funeral.
Mr. RUDDELL was with those who were acting in the interests of the poor and in the general interests of the State. The gentleman from Elkhart had expressed his view, Money lenders all take this risk. A man fails, for example--has a pressing want of cash--and they take his note into the market. The lender looks at it and says: Probably it may be paid at maturity; but possibly I shall be compelled to sue, and if so, I get my judgment and there will be six months' stay; and there may be yet six months more before I get my money. The necessary consequence would be that instead of his demanding the lawful interest at ten per cent. he would require the borrower to pay from fifteen to forty per cent. But if the capitalist felt when he makes the contract for the loan that the law would enforce the contract he would not hesitate. Again, by this policy of bad collection laws, as has been said, capital is fleeing away from us into States where, it is better protected. The speaker gave the case of a lady near this town who had been loaning money on first mortgage security at 10 per cent. She was a benefit to the community, but being unfortunate in one case wherein the party borrowing of her under our collection laws was offered, and he accepted, a premium to act the rascal, and he refused to pay her at maturity. To avoid the 10 per cent. he allowed his paper to go to the judgment and paid her but six per cent. And you will find many such parties every day going to their attorneys and inquiring of them what will be the cost and advantage of taking this course. This lady now will put all her money in real estate which will not pay her anything immediately; but she prefers to take this course and be relieved of all uncertainties. He proposed that the House should have ample time to consider this report, as it involves one of the most important questions to come before us.
Mr. WILSON. The bill on which the report was made provides that the contract shall bear the same rate of interest when carried into judgment. Now, it seems to me, than when a poor man is compelled to borrow money at 10 per cent. interest, it is in a case of extreme necessity; and under such circumstances it seems to me, that the money lender should not have the right to carry or 10 per cent. interest unto the judgment. Summarily cutting off time and opportunity to pay the debt without suit. It is a strange reasoning when it is argued that this bill is in favor of the borrower. I have yet to learn that a contract bearing 10 per cent. is more favorable to the borrower than one bearing 6 per cent., and that the spirit of this measure giving the creditor the right to enforce the same rate of interest in a judgment is in sympathy with the interest of the borrower. Such a change of the law would place the poor man in the clutches of the money lender, and when necessity comes and distress should fall upon him, instead of meeting with the forbearance, and leniency now exercised by many, he would be permitted simply to elect his choice--payment or suit--for under this act it would be preferable for creditors to put his note into judgment as soon as he could--than to exercise indulgence and time.
Mr. ABBETT. There is but one principle involved here. We are not to legislate for the benefit of any particular class; but the question is: whether a man shall be required to pay according to his contract. If he borrows at ten per cent. he should be compelled by law to pay ten per cent. I am emphatically in favor of every man paying what he agrees to pay, and let it be recovered by the judgment. And if a man agrees to pay even twenty or thirty per cent. I would have it required of him.
Mr. NEFF. It seems to me now that it is best to have a test, vote on this question. I am in favor of the report. I hope that the day is not far distant when the finances of the State will be such that six per cent. will be all that is required. Anything beyond that the courts now regard as usurious, and page: 88[View Page 88] so I regard it. But in what interest are we legislating? Is this bill to benefit the poor the borrower? Does it come from this class of men ? Certainly not. But it comes from men of money. I make no personal reflections. I do not mean any. But, talking about bankers; gentlemen say that when a banker takes a note with the law as it now is, he makes the borrower pay a greater rate of interest. I want to know if the banker does not take all the law allows him? Bankers do not expect to sue anybody. They have good advisers, and if the debtor is unfortunate--loses his summer's work, or loses by the hog cholera, or the like, they go to their lawyer, and he advises, and they have a, little patience, because it is their interest to do so, rather than take the six per cent. on a judgment. Talk not to me of legislating in favor of the poor. Legislation has been against the poor since the time of the law of Moses, and I am not ashamed or afraid to declare it in this Hall. When gentlemen ask that the judgment shall draw 10 per cent. I ask them not to claim here that they are representing the poor man. They are representing the interests of the man standing behind his counter loaning money. And there is another innovation upon our laws, something like this, which I denounce as infamous. It is called the iron-clad note. A man in straitened circumstances gives his note, and in it agrees to pay for collection and attorney's fees.
Mr. McDONALD. I represent a farming community, and I will say here that I loan money. I commenced in the world without a shilling, and I loan money to-day at 10 per cent.; but I never sued a man in my life. But, sir, there is not one in the hundred that loans money; and therefore my vote here shall be for the people as against capitalists. I am opposed to this bill as a proposition in the interest of the capitalists, and if this bill pass, as my friend (Mr. Neff) has said, with these iron-clad pitch-fork notes they will get 20 per cent.--as the law now stands they get 16 per cent. of the borrowers.
Mr. GORDON, of Boone. Gentlemen say they vote for this bill because it will discourage litigation; I vote against it because I think it encourages litigation.
Mr. COPNER spoke for concurrence in the report of the Committee.
Mr. SANSBERRY was satisfied that the law as it now stands encourages litigation. When a man has a note outstanding, if he is an honest man he will try to pay it, but if he is tricky he will allow it to be sued; and he will even incur the cost of taking it to the Supreme Court, and the costs of attorney's fees, in order to gain time; and although the party may not make much in the end, still he has the time. He thought that lawyers would prefer that the law stands as it is, but the merchant and the grocer who sell upon credit will take into consideration whether or not they will have to collect by law, and with this bill insuring them 10 per cent., it seems to me they would sell at a lower rate. It seems to me that this bill should be passed for the benefit of men of small means. Capitalists do not need anything of the kind. And as has been remarked by the gentleman from Cass there is a principle in it that when a man makes a contract he shall stand by it. As to the remark of the gentleman from Putnam [Mr. Neff] that it would be usurious, he would say that whatever the law fixes cannot be usurious.
After some further time spent in the discussion of the question of order as to the precedence of motions, &c., the report of the committee was concurred in by yeas 48, nays 47.
And so the bill was laid on the table.
BOND FOR COSTS.
Mr. NEFF, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Browning's bill, [H. R. 17,] to amend section 22 of the Justice's act, recommending that it lie on the table. Mr. N. stated that this bill is of the character of a quasi criminal law, proposing so to mend the law as, that a person in fear of violence to his person or injury to his property, can not go before the magistrata and make his affidavit to that effect without first giving his bond for the costs. At present the losing party in such case pays the costs. It was thought not best to change the law.
After debate by Messrs. CALKLINS of Porter, RUDDELL, BROWNING and others, the report of the committee was concurred in.
GRAND JURIES.
Mr. NEFF also returned Mr. Warrum's bill, [H. R. 5,] limiting the power of grand juries as to misdemeanors, recommending that it lie on the table.
The report was concurred in.
TRUSTEES OF THE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. MITCHELL moved to reconsider the vote taken this morning, adopting on the part of the House of Representatives, the Senate concurrent resolution to elect the Trustees of the Benevolent Institutions this afternoon, and that the consideration of his motion be postponed till Tuesday; which was agreed to by unanimous consent.
On motion it was
Ordered, That the Committee on Fees and Salaries, the Committee on Claims and the Committee on Public Expenditures be authorized severally to employ a clerk.
WILSON'S DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY LAW.
Mr. MINNIC submitted an order, which was adopted, that the Clerk be authorized to contract with the publishers of Wilson's Digest of Parliamentary Law for one copy for each member of this House. Amended by Mr. McDonald so as to insert these words: "At their lowest wholesale prices."
It was further ordered, that when the House adjourns to-day, it shall be till Monday at two o'clock p. m.
The House then took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed at 2 o'clock.
On motion of Mr. DEVOL, his joint reso- page: 89[View Page 89] lution for a memorial for equalizing the pension of soldiers of all wars, was taken up and passed on the part of the House of Representatives--yeas 82, nays 0.
TRIAL OF INSANITY.
Mr. McDONALD, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Warrum's bill [H. R. 21] to amend sections 97 and 103 of the criminal proceedure act of June 17, 1852, with a recommendation that it lie on the table. He said: This is a bill to try the insanity of the accused. We already have a law to try such cases and the Committee do not see any use of change.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. HENDERSON, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Ballenger's bill [H. R. 44] to amend section 90 of the criminal procedure act, with a recommendation that it lie on the table.
Mr. BALLENGER moved nonconcurrence in the report.
The SPEAKER. As the question is whether the House will or will not concur in the report, the Chair will put the question in the affirmative as reported by the committee.
The House concurred in the report without a division.
Mr. TEBBS, from the special committee thereon, returned his bill [H. R. 11] fixing the beginning of the term of the Court of Common Pleas in Dearborn county, with a recommendation that the same do pass.
The bill goes to the calendar.
Mr. McDOWELL submitted the following, which was adopted:
Resolved, That the Auditor of State be and is hereby required to report to this House the names of all officers who have and who have not complied with an act entitled "An act to ascertain the amount of the clerks of the Supreme, Circuit and Common Pleas Courts of this State, of the Sheriff of the Supreme Court, and of the various counties in this State, of County Auditors, Treasurers and Recorders of Circuit and Prosecuting Attorneys, and to provide punishment for a violation of its provisions." Approved June 3d, 1861.
RAILROADS.
Mr. DEFREES introduced a bill [H. R.61] for an act to reimburse the several townships where a special tax has been voted by a majority of the citizens thereof. [It is a proposition for a special tax on such railroads for this purpose.]
GAME--FISH.
Mr. DEFREES--[H. R. 62] for an act to amend and consolidate the several acts for the protection of birds, game and fish.
LEGISLATIVE EXPENSES.
A message was now received from the Senate by Mr. M'Lain, Secretary, announcing the passage and signature in that body, without amendment, of Mr. Williams' bill, [H. R. 32] appropriating $100,000 for the expenses of the 47th General Assembly.
CITY CORPORATION LAW.
Mr. TAYLOR--[H. R. 63,] for an act to amend sections 62, 63, 65, 66 of the act to repeal all general laws now in force for the incorporation of cities, and providing for the incorporation of cities, etc., approved March 14,1867, and declaring an emergency.
Mr. MILLIKAN--[H. R. 64,] for an act to amend sections 1 and 2 of the act to authorize aid for the construction of railroads by counties and townships taking stock therein.
MORGAN RAID CLAIMS.
Mr. TEBBS--[H. R. 65,] for an act making an appropriation of the sum of $413,549 48 for the payment of claims of sufferers by the Morgan raid. [It is a copy of the bill for that object which passed the House at last session.]
Mr. WILLIAMS desired that it be indefinitely postponed.
It was referred to the Committee on Claims.
THE HOLIDAYS.
Mr. RUDDELL [H. R. 66], for an act to designate the holidays to be observed in the acceptance and payment of bills of exchange, and repealing all laws in conflict with the same.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM [H. R. 67], for an act to amend section 5 of an act concerning mortgages, approved May 4, 1852.
Mr. McDONALD [H. R. 68], for an act to amend an act entitled "An act to district the State for the purpose of electing four Judges of the Supreme Court and creating the 5th District.
Mr. MINNICH [H.R. 69] for an act appropriating $25,000 to meet the existing contracts and current expenses of the Hospital for the Insane; $7,000 for the current expenses for the Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb from the 1st of January to the 1st of April, 1871, etc.
Mr. BRITTON [H. R. 70] for an act to authorize spring elections for township officers.
These bills were severally referred to the appropriate committees.
Mr. WASHBURN submitted a resolution that the several standing committees of the House shall fix upon the time for the consideration of each several subject referred to them, and their chairman shall give notice of the time and place of the consideration of the same by their several committees.
It was laid on the table.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM submitted a resolution, which was adopted by consent, that the Chairmen of the different standing committees of this House be requested to dismiss their clerks at the earliest period possible.
Mr. ST. JOHN now obtained leave to return the substitute for his descedent's estates amendment bill [H. R. 10] which he said is identical with the original.
THE CALENDAR.
Mr. Martin's, of Putnam, bill [H. R. 29] repealing sections 3 and 4 of the act of February 12, 1855, concerning voluntary associations. Mr. Stephens' fish bill [H. R. 30;]
Mr. Biggs' divorce law amendment bill [H.R. 31;] Mr. Rhodes' married woman's bill [H. R. 34;]
Mr. Taylor's bill [H. R. 35] for the amendment of the 3d section of the act of June 17, 1852, for the organization of County Boards, &c., (to provide the cumulative ballot,) were severally read the second time and appropriately referred.
And then, at 4 o'clock, the House adjourned till Monday at 2 o'clock.
