HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, January 24, 1871.The House met at 9 o'clock A. M. The journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved.
THE CALENDAR.
Mr. Hawley's bill, [H. R. 119], to regulate the dispensing and retailing of drugs, medicines and chemicals, was read the second time.
Mr. Rhodes' bill, [H. R. 120], to amend section 4 of the liquor law of March 5, 1859, was read and referred to the Temperance Committee, with an amendment indicated by the author, and another by Mr. St. John to make the bond $2,500.
Mr. STONE'S bill, [H. R. 72], to amend section 16, chap. 6, of the act concerning promissory notes, approved March 11, 1861.
Mr. McDONALD said this bill was intended to remedy the great evil practiced on the part of patent right venders, by the provision that the notes shall be sued in the township of the drawer.
It was ordered to the engrossment and 3d reading.
CONTRACTS TO PAY ATTORNEYS' FEES.
Mr. Ballenger's bill [H. R. 75], to make illegal and void all contracts for payment of attorneys' fees, coming up,
Mr. BIGGS submitted an amendment excepting from the operations of the bill all notes payable to any bank or to any person for loaned money.
Mr. DEFREES also indicated an amendment, which was not received--but the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
Subsequently the Speaker stated the irregularity of the action on this bill, the amendments not having been considered.
Mr. BALLENGER. On my motion the engrossment was ordered. The amendments were not passed.
The SPEAKER. The chair was not paying attention at the time. The House will return to that order.
Mr. BIGGS said his amendment was announced before the order for engrossment.
Mr. Defrees' amendment was then read by by the Clerk--proposing that where such attorneys fees are allowed they shall not exceed five per cent on sums less than $500, two and a half per cent. on all sums over that amount.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM submitted an amendment proposing that any person, company bank, or corporation, violating the provisions of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not exceeding $50 nor less than $10.
Mr. RHODES had the other day submitted an amendment that where parties agree for page: 146[View Page 146] the payment of such fees in a certain amount, the contract shall be valid.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is not certain that the amendment of the gentleman from Fountain (Mr. Cunningham) is in order.
On motion of Mr. MILLIKAN all the amendments were laid on the table.
Mr. Hines' bill, [H. R. 79] to extend the time of certain railroads, (five years) and legalize the acts of certain directors.
Mr. Washburn's bill [H. R. 99] to regulate the sale of alcoholic liquors, drugs, medicines, and poisons.
Mr. Barnaby's bill [H. R. 126] to amend paragraph 13, of section 53, of the general city corporation act of March 14, 1867.
Mr. Cunningham's bill [H. R. 67] to amend section 5 of the act of May 4, 1852, concerning mortgages.
Mr. Biggs' bill [H. R. 136] to amend section 1 of the exemption act of February 17, 1852.
These bills were severally read and ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. Beeler's bill [H. R. 41] providing a homestead exemption of $1,000 coming up--
Mr. BALLINGER stated that the change here is so very radical as to exempt a very large number of persons from the payment of their debts.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. McDONALD, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Taylor's bill [H. R. 63] to amend sections 62, 63, 65, 66 of the general city incorporation act of March 14, 1867, with amendments in section 1--inserting the words "or alley"--and striking out and inserting to this effect, "and to assess the cost of construction of any street or alley, or its alteration, and the damages resulting--in such equitable proportions as they shall deem just."
The SPEAKER, The chair understands this bill proposes to amend the law in cases where streets are desired to be changed or extended. As the law now now stands at present the damages must be paid out of the common fund of the township or city. This bill proposes that part of the assessment be paid by persons benefited, owning land on the street.
The report was concurred in.
RECORD EVIDENCE.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. St. John's bill [H. R. 132], to repeal the proviso in section 2 of the act of May 4, 1869, in relation to the registry of Michigan road lands, etc., recommending its passage.
Mr. F. said: This proviso proposed to be repealed was to this effect: That where the title has not been recorded for three years, neither the record nor a copy shall be admissable in evidence. The Committee think there never was a good reason for this proviso, and that it ought to be repealed.
Mr. BIGGS admitted his personal interestedness in the continuance of this proviso, but he was not alone in the matter; and he failed to see where any one could be injured by it, while on the other hand there are numerous cases that will be materially affected by this change. Perhaps gentlemen not familiar with Northern Indiana do not know that we have had a kind of wholesale forgery and swindling in real estate titles there that are terrible. We have a set of land sharks that have been round forging land titles- finding parties in possession of tax-titles they have made contracts that for a certain amount of money they would procure the original title. This was the especially in his county and in the county of Marshall, where parties have forged the deeds and the names of the officers taking the acknowledgements long after the parties have been dead, and put them on record; and the moment the Recorder writes the last word, they take the original papers and dissappear from the State. So they have a clear title on the record in this way. The original title is in a man of New Orleans; he conveys to a party in Chicago, and the latter to a man in St. Louis--all perfectly straight. But when you trace it, it is found that the original papers are all forgeries. All orders of courts have been found ineffectual to produce original titles--parties summoned get discharged by saying the titles are not in their possession; other parties have gone from the State, and the consequence is we are not able to show the forgeries. He cited a case of this kind wherein the original parties had been dead twenty-five years. If we could find the original titles for the purpose of comparing the handwriting we could reach the forgeries; but these have been spirited away by the land sharks. Now gentlemen could see the reason of that proviso; and to repeal it would leave many parties powerless as to the maintenance of their rights.
Mr. COX was cognizant of a number of cases such as those represented by the gentleman from Kosciusko, [Mr. Biggs,] and hoped gentlemen living in other parts of the State would give a little further time.
Mr. BALLINGER felt that it was the part of special legislation to affect the interests of comparatively a few people of the State on the ground that injuries have been sustained. Titles to real estate have been forged, he supposed, in other places than Northern Indiana, Hundreds and thousands of original deeds are mislaid. Almost every attorney has such papers in his office, and the owners do not know where they are. Some of the courts wholly ignored this law, and when it is plead by attorneys the Court laughs at them. The Courts are open against all violations of the law. But in some cases it is dodged by allowing these copies in evidence, while they do not admit the original. It did seem to him that any very ingenious court would have much difficulty in showing the irregularity and presumption of fraud connected with the fact of offering for record deeds and papers twenty-seven or thirty years after the grantors and all the original parties are dead and gone. On its very face it suggests fraud. Even in the case the gentleman referred to, they were not without remedy. Certainly it is not better that hundreds and thousands of page: 147[View Page 147] persons should he deprived of their rights in order that the few may he benefitted.
Mr. ST. JOHN, author of the bill, was not in favor of too much legislation, but where an act of legislation has been hurried through to the manifest injustice of a large portion of the people of the State, it ought to be repealed. With regard to the instances--of wrong referred to by the gentlemen from Kosciusko, [Mr. Biggs] there were other means of remedy besides the repeal of this proviso. He had yet to learn the case of any man convicted of purjury without a prosecution. He would meet the statements of wrong suffered by the gentleman and others with a statement of facts. He spoke of actions under this proviso, founded upon the fact that deeds have not been recorded within the three years. The heirs have come forward seeking to recover lands which have thus been conveyed away in good faith. He supposed a case. The gentleman from Kosciusko owns a piece of land in Marion county worth $20,000. I purchase it and take his deed, but in the innocency of my heart I lay this deed among my papers, as we frequently do--and there are hundreds and thousands of deeds that have laid three years without record--well, I do not take possession of this land immediately ; but in one week after the three years expires I am Indianapolis and get my deed recorded. I am not within this proviso. The party that made the deed dies; and the orginal deed is destroyed by fire; and there is nothing left but the record of it, made one week after the three years expired. After this the gentleman's wife and children come into the Court of Marion county and prosecute me or my heirs for the land; and, sir, I am now excluded from producing my record of title. I ask if this wrong is not as great as the wrong which the gentleman speaks of ? We can't make a law against the perpetration of perjury or forgery, nor do we legislate for the purpose of deterring men from acting the land shark. This proviso does not apply to records hereafter made, but to those made in the past as well as those in the future; and by it innocent parties may be deprived of their lands because in the innocence of their souls they have failed to put their deeds upon the record within the prescribed three years.
When he had concluded, and after further debate by Messrs. BALLENGER and DAVIDSON -the latter suggesting an amendment prohibiting the person who puts his deed upon record from withdrawing the same from the Recorder's office.
On motion of Mr. BALLENGER the report of the commitiee was concurred in.
CONTRACTS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES.
Mr. RHODES moved ineffectually to table his previous motion to reconsider the vote of this morning, which adopted Mr. Millikan's motion to lay on the table certain amendments offered to Mr. Ballenger's ironclad note bill, but after some conversation across the House--
On motion of MARTIN, of Putnam, the vote on Mr. Millikan's motion was reconsidered, which brings the amendments again before the House.
Mr. St. JOHN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Williams' decedents estates' law amendment bill [H. R. 135], with a recommendation that it be laid on the table--the Committee being of opinion that the amendments proposed to the law by which a married woman may dispose of her property without the husband would be separating the interests of husband and wife, and so disturb that domestic relation.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. St. JOHN, from the Committee on the organization of Courts, returned Mr. Ballinger's bill [H. R 81], to repeal all laws creating criminal courts in the State, except in the counties of Marion and Vigo, recommending its passage.
Mr. NEFF inquired if the passage of such a bill would not be local legislation.
Mr. RHODES, Mr. Hooker and Mr. McDonald, could not see the propriety of retaining the Criminal Court in Vigo county and abolishing it in Vanderburgh. The statute creating these criminal courts requiring counties having a certain population to maintain criminal courts.
Mr. LINES said the Committee on the Organization of Courts had taken the bill as desirable on the part of the people, because coming from a gentleman living in one of the counties supporting a criminal court.
Mr. BALLENGER. Those acquainted with these courts know that they are a peculiar kind of courts--new fangled courts in the State of Indiana. There was, perhaps, some necessity for such a court in Marion county; but with the exception of Marion county, he questioned very much whether there was any propriety or necessity for such a court anywhere else in the State. And after its novelty, he considered its expensiveness and general inutility. And with respect to the objection of special legislatian, he could not understand how this bill, which proposes to repeal certain acts creating criminal courts, can be special legislation, unless the acts themselves creating these courts were acts of special legislation--this being a bill simply to repeal these criminal court acts, excepting those for the counties of Marion and Vigo.
Mr. DAVIDSON gave his reasons for concurring in the action of the Committee, which recommends the passage of the bill. Among the people of his county the feeling is very general against this bill. During the canvass there was no man who raised his voice in favor of their continuance. Those in favor of the continuance of these courts were not disposed to speak out. Almost the entire voice of the people of Tippecanoe county, outside of Lafayette, were against them. They seem to have been demanded at first on account of the heavy business in the Circuit Courts; and the demand rose chiefly from the members of the bar; and its reasonableness might be admitted on account of the rule which give precedence to the criminal page: 148[View Page 148] business on the docket. He considered it best not to continue these Criminal Courts not to favor them by legislation till our Criminal Circuits can be satisfactorily arranged. Otherwise he predicted that before the close of the next session there would be other applications for these courts from Logansport, Peru, Valparaiso, etc., and so we would have a great many idle Courts. He continued till--
The SPEAKER, to shorten the debate, made a statement to the effect that there certainly could be no objection to abolishing these Courts where it was desired by the people and to their continuance where that was desirable. So far as the chair was concerned, his vote would be governed in this way.
After further debate by Messrs. Ruddell, Cunningham, Stanberry and Ballenger--
On motion of Mr. WILSON the bill was referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts, with instructions to call before them for consultation all the members of the House interested.
Mr. ABBETT laid before the House the report of the Trustees of the State University, which was referred to the Committee on Education.
The SPEAKER announced the appointment of Mr. Conner as a member of the Committee on the Sinking Fund in place of Mr. Cauthorn; and Mr. Mitchell was added to the Committee on Education.
Mr. BROWNING, from the Committee on County and Township Business, returned Mr. Browning's bill [H. R. 85] providing for the sale of lands returned delinquent for the non-payment of taxes, recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. BALLENGER said every one knows that in cases of the sale of land for taxes by the county officers, they can not furnish a title to the purchaser which will stand, and the result is that they can not be sold. The object of this bill that the result of the sale upon the judgment should be to gain a good title.
After debate by Messrs. Browning and Mitchell the House took a recess till 2 o'clock P.M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed at two o'clock P. M., and announced the unfinished order to wit: The consideration of the report of the Committee on County and Township Business for the indefinite postponement of Mr. Browning's delinquent land tax sale bill [H. R., 85.]Mr. BROWNING proposed to amend by making the attorney's fees $5 instead of $10, but
Objection being made as to the order--Mr. MINICK holding that Mr. Browning should have the right to give notice of such an amendment.
Mr. BALLENGER moved ineffectually to recommit the bill to the same Committee.
Mr. BROWNING desired that it should go to the Judiciary Committee; but--
Objection being made, Mr. BALLINGER moved that it be referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
On motion of Mr. WILSON, Mr. Ballinger's motion was laid on the table.
Mr. BROWNING moved that it be referred to a special committee of five.
On motion of Mr. CUNNINGHAM, this motion was laid on the table.
Mr. DEFREES and Mr. WILSON demanded the previous question; and there was a second, and on the main question--
The House refused to concur in the report of the Committee on County and Township Business. And then--
On motion of Mr. WILSON the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BEELER, from the Committee on Agriculture, returned Mr. Rhodes' bill [H. R. 151,] for bounty on red fox scalps, with an amendment striking out "red," and so recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in.
BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. MINICK, from the Committee on the Benevolent Institutions of the State, returned his bill, [H. R. 69], for special appropriations to meet existing contracts and current expenses of the benevolent institutions of the State, with amendments making the appropriation for the Deaf and Dumb Asylum $5,000 instead of $7,000 striking out House of Refuge, and inserting Soldiers' and Orphans' Home in lieu, and adding (section 4) an appropriation of $13,500 for the payment of Messrs. Braden & Co. for the introduction of the Holly Water Works in the Hospital for the Insane, and so recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in.
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION--WABASH AND ERIE CANAL BUSINESS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, to-wit: the report of the special committee to consider the various propositions relative to the amendment to the State Constitution as to the Wabash and Erie Canal business.
The Committee rejected the Senate's proposition for amendment of the Constitution, article 10, by adding a section as heretofore reported in these proceedings.
Mr. NEFF moved that the resolution be adopted, and enforced the motion in a general speech (crowded out here for want of space) which will appear hereafter in continuation in these REPORTS.
Mr. MILES followed, urging also the adoption of the report, urging his views in a speech at length, which must also be referred to our continuation of this debate.
Mr. McDONALD and Mr. BALLENGER, also successively took the floor, urging the justice and public policy of the adoption of the report, in briefer speeches, which must take the same reference here.
The resolution reported by the special committee was adopted -- yeas 93, nays, none.
On motion of Mr. WILSON it was ordered that members not voting on this question be page: 149[View Page 149] recorded as excused absentees; and Messrs. Robertson, White, Williams, Taylor and others were mentined in this connection.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. MONTGOMERY, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Stone's bill [H. R. 40] to amend section 7, chapter 170, relative to supervisors, recommending that it lie on the table.
After debate by Messrs. Stone, Guthrie, Cox, Britton, Mitchell, Butterworth and Lines.
The House refused to concur in the report, and the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. BRITTON, from the Committee on Roads, returned Mr. Holland's bill [H. R. 106] to prevent electors from voting for supervisor other than that in his own district, with an amendment striking out and making the penalty $10 instead of $50, and so recommending its passage.
Mr. MILLIKAN, from the Committee on Roads, returned Mr. Curtiss' bill [H. R. 42] to amend section 11 of the act to allow County Commissioners to organize turnpike companies, recommending its passage.
Mr. CURTIS explained, that it is to authorize road directors to reduce their tolls at discretion.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. MONTGOMERY, from the Committee on Roads returned Mr. Hooker's bill [H. R., 100], for a road tax from 1 to 35 cents, and $1 poll, road improvements by contract, recommending that it be laid on the table.
After debate by Mr. HOOKER and Mr. KENNEDY, the report was concurred in.
Mr. WILSON (by unanimous consent) introduced a bill [H. R. 107] for an act in relation to fees of certain officers and persona therein named, and prescribing penalties for the violation of its provisions, which was read by title and 200 copies thereof ordered to be printed.
And then, at 4:45 o'clock, the House adjourned.
