THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
THIRTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, November 26, 1872.The SPEAKER called the House to order at nine o'clock, a. m. Prayer was offered by Rev. Johnson Smith, of the Methodist Episcopal Church.
On motion of Mr. WOODARD, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
THE WABASH CANAL MATTER.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from Thomas Dowling, resident Trustee of the Wabash and Erie canal, inclosing a memorial from the London and New York committees representing the holders of Indiana canal certificates. The memorial sets forth that the memorialists originally held the bonds of the State issued under various acts from 1832 to 1836, which bonds they were induced to surrender under the promises and provisions of the acts of 1846 and 1847, which guaranteed to them the tolls and revenues of the canal for the redemption of the principal and interest of their bonds, and expressly declared that the State would thereafter make no provision to pay principal or interest on any internal improvement bond or bonds, until the same should be surrendered and the holders accepted in lieu thereof certificates of stock, as provided in the act of 1847; that they are now informed a movement is on foot to provide for the redemption of certain unsurrendered bonds in violation of the provision of the said act, and contrary to good faith; and they therefore protest against any step being taken for the payment of any bonds so outstanding unless like provision be made for the payment of the bonds surrendered under provisions of the act of 1847. They ask, however, if the State shall deem it wise in the maintenance of her credit to redeem in cash the outstanding bonds that similar provision be made for the payment of the principal and interest of the canal certificates. The memorial is signed by Dent, Palmer & Co., N. M. Rothschild & Sons, Baring, Brothers & Co., and Frederick Huth & Co., of London, and George Mosle, August Belmont, and A. Gracie King, of New York, the committee of the holders of the Indiana canal certificates.
On motion of Mr. CAUTHORN the matter was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
SOLDIERS' BOUNTIES.
The joint resolution [H. R. 3] instructing Congressmen for equalization of bounties of soldiers and seamen in the war of the rebellion, to favor the passage by Congress of a law giving all honorably discharged soldiers a bounty equal to $8.33 1-3 per month, was taken up on the third reading and passed--yeas, 84; nays, 0.
HUNTING AND SHOOTING.
Mr. Furnas' bill [H. R. 8] to prevent hunting and shooting on enclosed land without consent of the owner or occupant, and providing a penalty not less than $5 nor more than $50, providing that suits shall be brought within one year by the page: 129[View Page 129]owner of the land, was taken up in order and finally passed the House by yeas, 69; nays, 18.
INDIANA UNIVERSITY.
Mr. King's bill [H. R. 37] to authorize an appropriation of $8,000 to pay debts incurred by the Trustees of Indiana University in 1870-71, was passed the final reading in the House--yeas 89, nays 0.
REAL ESTATE REDEMPTION.
Mr. Schmuck's bill [H. R. 43] to repeal the act of June 4, 1861, providing for the redemption of real property sold on execution or order of sale, etc., was taken up, considered on the third reading and rejected--yeas 17, nays 71.
UNSURRENDERED FIVE PER CENT. INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
Mr. KIMBALL asked and obtained unanimous consent to introduce a bill [H. R. 129] for an act to protect the Wabash and Erie Canal and the tolls and revenues thereof, from sale or sequestration on account of outstanding and unsurrendered canal bonds or stock or from unsurrenred Internal improvement bonds, etc. [It approprites money sufficient to redeem the bonds forming the basis of the suit and judgment of John W. Garrett to an amount not exceeding 191 of the 5 per cent. bonds,] He moved that it be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, but on motion of Mr. Cauthorn it was laid on the table and ordered to be printed.
TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Mr. Cowgill's bill [H. R. 49] creating the twenty-second Judicial Circuit of Indiana, and fixing the time of holding court therein, was considered on the third reading.
[It constitutes the counties of Huntington, Wabash, and Miami, the Twenty-second Judicial Circuit, and fixes the time of holding courts therein.]
Mr. COWGILL set forth the necessity and desirability of this bill.
Mr, WOOLEN considered that we should be careful about falling into the error of too greatly increasing the number of circuits, and at the same time increasing the salary of the Judges.
Messrs. COWGILL and GREGORY reiterated the importance of the bill.
Mr. GIVEN suggested that there is now a circuit numbered twenty-second.
Mr. COWGILL said there is not a twenty-second circuit, and in reply to Mr. Johnson and others, he showed that those three counties will afford as much business as the Judge can get through with. The bill then finally passed the House; yeas, 71; nays, 22.
SUPERVISORS' SETTLEMENTS.
Mr. Kilpatrick's bill [ H. R. 69 ] in relation to the settlement of Supervisors with Township Trustees, defining the time of settlement annually on the first Saturday in October, was considered and finally passed the House; yeas, 86; nays, 3.
TWENTY-NINTH (CRIMINAL) JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY.
Mr. Branham's bill [H. R. 72] in relation to criminal circuit courts, and creating the twenty-ninth criminal circuit (for the county of Jefferson), providing for the election of judge, the transfer of actions, etc., was considered on the third reading.
Mr, MILLER would like an explanation: the criminal court there has been lately abolished.
Mr.BRANHAM said he introduced that bill at the solicitation of prominent citizens of Madison. It is true, there was a criminal court there, and it was at the last session abolished.
Mr. BAKER, having been requested by sundry citizens of Jefferson county to oppose the bill, stated that some years ago there was a criminal court in that county, and that, by petition of two-thirds of its citizens, that court was abolished. When he was at home he was asked by those people to have the consideration of the bill deferred till he might be furnished with a remonstrance against it. I simply ask for this, not feeling sufficiently interested in the matter to ask for its indefinite postponement.
Mr. BRANHAM had also been in communication with those persons in Jefferson county who are opposed to this bill, and it was agreed between us that it might be best to let the bill pass the House to save time, and their remonstrance could be sent to the Senate.
Mr. WILSON, of Ripley. This bill, only of interest to the citizens of Jefferson county, was before the committee, with all the facts connected with its necessity or desirability. He had seen many residents of Jefferson county recently, and their expression of opinion has been almost unanimous in favor of the bill. Jefferson county is populous and Madison is a city, and they have a large amount of criminal business.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 54, nays 25.
page: 130[View Page 130]TOWN SURVEYS AND MAPS.
Mr. Canthorn's bill [H. R. 95] to authorize cities and towns to make and authorize surveys and plats, was considered on the third reading.
Mr. CAUTHORN said: It has appeared at a recent session of the city council of Vincennes, that the existing plat of that city is entirely illegal. He understood that the town of Sullivan, and other towns in the State, were in a similar situation as to their surveys and plats, and there is no law authorizing such maps and plattings.
The bill was finally passed the House--yeas 87, nays 1.
JUSTICES JURISDICTION.
Mr. WILSON of Ripley's bill [ H. R. 26] to so amend the ninth section of the justices act of June 9. 1852, as to make his jurisdiction co-extensive with the county, but that actions shall be brought in townships where defendants reside, or where the debt was contracted or the contract made, which failed on Saturday for want of a constitutional majority, was now finally passed--yeas 53, nays 38.
ADJOURNMENT OVER THANKSGIVING.
Mr. Cauthorn's concurrent resolution for adjournment over Thanksgiving day, from Wednesday to Monday, December 2, coming from the Senate with an amendment striking out "House," and inserting in lieu, "the two houses of the General Assembly"--
Mr. BRANHAM moved to suspend the order of business and take it up.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CAUTHORN thought the Senate was growing technical. The law provided that each House must meet on its own adjournment. This was a concurrent resolution for the adjournment of the General Assembly, and he doubted if the power existed te provide for such adjournment. The constitution gives the power to each House to meet on its own adjournment. The proper plan would have been for the Senate to agree to the House resolution and pass a similar one asking consent of the House to their adjournment in case they wished to adjourn.
The question being on concurring in the Senate amendment, it was rejected.
The SPEAKER stated that the action of the Senate was according to precedent. Thereupon Mr. Cauthom said he would yield his objection.
Then, without reconsidering the vote rejecting the amendment of the Senate, the question was again put on concurrence; and the Senate amendment was concurred in.
On motion of Mr. BUTTERWORTH, Mr. Wilson of Ripley's per diem and mileage amendment bill [H. R. 73] was postponed, and made the special order for Tuesday next at two o'clock p. m.
Mr. King's bill [H. R. 99] to authorize cities and towns of 10,000 inhabitants and over to make loans and issue bonds, was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. KING said because the bill authorized the loans to the extent oi 10 per cent. on the taxable property--a per cent, thought by some too large--he would ask unanimous consent that it be agian referred the committee for further consideration. And it was so ordered.
PROTECTION OF SHEEP.
Mr. Odle's bill [H. R 50] to amend the dog law so as not to conflict with the act of 1852 for the protection of sheep, was taken up on the final reading.
Mr. FURNAS said that in case there is not money enough in the fund to indemnify all the sheep losers, the act provides that it shall be divided pro rata amongst the losers.
Mr. SHIRLEY said he was instructed to support a measure of this kind. It was but an act of simple justice to the owners of sheep killed by dogs.
Mr. GIFFORD said under the present law the first comers amongst the losers get all the fund, and the rest get none.
The bill was finally passed the House--yeas, 85; nays, 5.
CITY IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. Branham's bill [H. R. 71] to amend section 60 of the general corporation act of March 14, 1867, coming up in order on the third reading--
Mr. WALKER: It simply amends section 60, adding two or three lines, giving the cities authority, in the same way that they give aid to railroads and macadamized roadways, to give aid to other public improvements, upon petition of a majority of freeholders.
The vote on the final passage was reported--yeas, 46; nays, 41; so the bill failed, for lack of the constitutional majority of 51.
REMOVAL OF COUNTY SEATS.
Mr. Walker's bill [H. R.81] amending the act providing for relocation of the county seats and the construction of buildings, by providing for immediate removal, and extending the time for construction of new buildings, was taken up on the third reading.
page: 131[View Page 131]Mr. WALKER : The bill provides for amendment of the present act in two intances. It in no wise facilitates or permits the removal of county seats. The proposed bill begins when the removal is virtually effected. As the law now stands, when the removal is ordered, the new Court House is to be built in one year. It must occur to gentlemen that in our counties, which are generally large, no good Court House can be built in the time with any view to economy. It is known that in this city it has required a year's time to lay the foundation of a Court House. And as the law now stands, the courts can not be held in the new site till the buildings are erected. This bill provides that after the contracts have been complied with, the courts may open there, providing the petitioners shall furnish the buildingr at their own expense.
Mr. GIFFORD suggested that the bill does not limit the cost of the Court House.
Mr. LENFESTEY. Does the bill legalize any act for the removal of county seats?
Mr. WALKER. It does not in any particular refer to past legislative action.
Mr. LENFESTEY would like to have the approval of the friends of the bill of a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on County and Township Business.
Mr. WALKER stated that the friends of the bill had been desirous, and were still, of a full and fair understanding of the matter, and it had received this consideration at the hands of the committee which had reported on it favorably. He believed the House was now ready to vote upon it.
Mr. OFFUTT spoke in favor of the passage of the bill.
And then the bill finally passed; yeas, 70; nays, 22.
PUBLIC GROUNDS.
Mr. RUMSEY'S bill [H. R. 90] touching public squares and grounds not specifically dedicated, coming up was rejected on the final reading; yeas 34; nays, 49.
ELECTION OF UNITED STATES SENATOR.
Mr. FURNAS called for the special order--the election of United States Senator--and after a call of the House--The Speaker: In pursuance of Act of Congress, the House will now proceed to vote in the election of a United States Senator for the State of Indiana, to succeed the Hon. O. P. Morton, whose term of service expires on the 4th of March next. Nominations are in order.
Mr. THAYER placed in nomination the Hon. O. P. Morton, present incumbent, in these words: "I will put in nomination as the man most eminently qualified to succeed the present able, efficient and distinguished incumbent in the United States Senate, whose time expires on the 4th of March, 1873, the Hon. O. P. Morton."
Mr. WOOLLEN nominated the Hon. James D. Williams, of Knox county.
There being no other nominations, the vote proceeded, and the Speaker reported the result: Whole number of votes cast, 95; O. P. Morton received 54 votes; J. D. Williams received 41 votes--as follows:
Those voting for O. P. Morton were--Messrs. Baxter, Billingsley, Branham, Butts, Butterworth, Broadus, Clark, Cobb, Cole, Cowgill, Crumpacker, Edwards of Lawrence, Eward, Furnas, Gifford, Glasgow, Goudie, Gronendyke, Hardesty, Hatch, Hedrick, Hollingsworth, Johnson, Kimball, King, Kirkpatrick, Lenfesty, Lee, Lent, Mellett, Miller, North, Odle, Ogden, Prentiss, Reeves, Riggs, Rumsey, Satterwhite, Scott, Tingley, Thompson of Spencer, Thompson of Elkhart, Thayer, Troutman, Walker, Wilson of Ripley, Wilson of Jay, Wesner, Wolflin, Wood, Woodard, Wynn and Mr. Speaker--54.
Those voting for Jamos D. Williams were--Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Bowser, Brett, Buskirk, Cauthorn, Claypool, Cline, Coffman, Durham, Eaton, Ellsworth, Given, Glazebrook, Gregory, Heller, Henderson, Hoyer, Isenhower, Jones, Martin, McKinney, McConnell, Offutt, Peed, Pfrimmer, Rudder, Reno,Richardson, Schmuck, Shirley, Smith, Spellman, Stanley, Shutt, Strange, Teeter, Tulley, Willard, Woollen and Whitworth--41.
Absent--Messrs. Barrett, Barker, Blocher, Dial and Gobie.
So the SPEAKER announced the result: Mr. Morton has received a majority of all the votes cast on the part of the House of Representatives.
A message was received from the Senate, announcing the passage of a concurrent resolution for a joint convention of the two houses at twelve m. on Wednesday for the purpose of comparing the vote for Senator.
The order of business was suspended, the concurrent resolution taken up and passed, and then, on motion the House took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER called the House to order at two o'clock, and resumed the order of business.
DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS.
Mr. Johnson's bill [H. R. 98] making appropriations of $4,000 to the State Normal school, $1,199 11 to pay cost of repairs on Supreme Court buildings, $7,000 to pay debt contracted by the Southern prison, and $26,381 62 to the House of Refuge, and $4,000 for current expenses, was finally passed the House--yeas 85, nays 1.
EXEMPTION LAWS AMENDMENT.
Mr. Shirley's exemption amendment bill [H. R. 5] raising the exemption to five page: 132[View Page 132]hundred dollars, was taken up on the second reading thereof, with the unfavorable report of the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the favorable report of the minority.
The SPEAKER. Under the rules of the House, the minority report must be considered as an amendment to the majority report. The question is on the adoption of the report of the minority.
Mr. SHIRLEY had presented this bill in view of the Constitutional provision, "that the privileges of the debtor shall be recognized by wholesome laws," etc. In 1852, under the present Constitution, the people of Indiana thought $300 was a proper exemption. But we all know now that the prices of living have so increased since that time that $500 to-day would riot place the debtor in a position to protect his family so well as $300 would twenty years ago. Whlist he was by no means in favor of legislation to enable the debtor to avoid the payment of his debts, he was prepared to say that the present law does not give him enough. A man ought to have something more than his household goods--a horse, a team; and the mechanic should have his tools; and if we design to carry out this Constitutional provision (as he believed) we ought to raise the exemption to $500.
Mr. PEED did not think exemption laws were for the purpose of enabling the debtor to go on with his business, but rather for the protection of his family. If the object were to enable the man to do business, we ought to exempt much more than we do. But in his experience the $300 has been sufficient for the object of the law, and he saw no occasion now for raising it.
Mr. THAYER thought the bill a good one, and concurred fully in the remarks of of the gentleman from Johnson and Morgan (Mr. Shirley).
Mr. JOHNSON would be in favor of raising the exemption to $500, provided it can be so shaped and guarded that it cannot be used as a cloak for fraud, but only for the protection of the debtor's family. There are cases in the practice of every attorney that would illustrate this--would demonstrate that, whilst the exemption laws will, and in many cases do, protect the debtor from utter ruin and his family from want, yet, in a large majority of cases, they work injury and fraud on the creditor. I have in my mind now several instances where a man is protected by the law from his creditors, and he lives in the enjoyment of all the comforts of life through the possessions of his wife--possessions to the extent of twenty to twenty-five thousand dollars' worth of property. The man thus protected is virtually in a lucrative business, accumulating property in his wife's name. My idea is that this bill should provide for the exemption of $500 either in his own name and right, or in the name and right of his wife, or jointly in the right of both. If the family is protected the object of the law is gained. If the family is thoroughly protected by the wife having a competency in her own right, that is the object of the law, and it is so understood in all the States where an exemption law is in force. Here is justice to the debtor as well as to the creditor. It is wrong to protect the debtor by a law that will unjustly injure the creditor. Then, if it is order to propose an amendment, let the bill read in this way: "Exempt $500 owned or possessed by any resident householder, either owned by himself or by his wife, or by himself and wife jointly." If this were in the bill I should vote against the majority report.
Mr. SHIRLEY. The effect of the gentleman's amendment would be to say that the wife shall support the husband. It would be a slur on men to say that wives shall be supporters of their husbands, instead of husbands supporters of their wives. This provision of law must apply solely to the debtor--to no other person. Such a provision would violate the Constitution--strike down the whole thing. It would be unjust to say, because the wife has property, the husband shall not have the benefit of this law. The gentleman ought to remember that under our laws the realty of the wife belongs absolutely to her. You can't take the wife's property for her own debts. I say it would be not only unjust, but a reflection upon the intelligence of mankind.
Mr. JOHNSON. I did not suggest that any part of the wife's property should be taken to pay the husband's debts. My suggestion was to the Constitutional provision that there should be the necessary competency for a living. Now take the man who in his own right does not dare to say he owns anything, but whose wife has a competency, in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand you will find that such a debtor lives in the regular enjoyment of all the comforts of life. You will find him enjoying his wife's property precisely as his own; therefore he is fully protected in the enjoyment of all the comforts of life. I do not say that her property should be taken for his debts, but so long as he has a competency so long the creditor shall have the right to take, page: 133[View Page 133]not his wife's property, but his own; but protect him in $500, which shall be owned and possessed either by himself or by himself and his wife together.
Mr. WOOLLEN. I suppose, as I made the report, I ought to say something in defense of the action of the majority of the committee, and the best thing I can say is that it was the desire of the committee to let things stand as they are, unless they can see good reason for a change. The bill of the gentleman from Morgan and Johnson (Mr. Shirley) is just like any other scheme of benevolence. It was thought by the committee that it is against the Constitution. I think the exemption should be only in favor of the debtor, but the other question is the one I desire to impress upon the House. The $300 clause has stood for twenty years; and the raising of it from $300 to $500 is an innovation, and it might work more hardship than otherwise. To be sure it would be better for the debtor; but whether it would be more just is doubtful in my mind. The present exemption has operated fairly, so far as I know, all over the State. Better let it stand than begin a change of which we may not be able to see the end.
Mr. WOODARD had concurred with the minority of the committeewould be in favor of raising it to more than $500. I do not believe that all poor men are dishonest. I do not believe that any man can say that $300 is a reasonable amount for an exemption law, because it is not enough to enable a man to make a living. He must have either the implements of the farmer or the tools of themechanic. And when the debter takes these it is not right. In Illinois the exemption is a thousand dollars. In other States a larger amount.
Mr. MELLETT. I am in favor of the minority report. I concur in the remarks of the gentleman from Morgan (Mr. Shirley) and the gentleman from Parke (Mr. Woodard.) I would be willing to raise the amount, and then it would not be as large proportionately as it was when the present law was passed. Whilst every right-minded man with the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Johnson) can sympathize with the creditor when the debtor is covering up his property, I do not think his provision would relieve that. It is true that we see many debtors living in wealth and luxury, from whom no creditor can get a dollar. Rut what would be the effect of the gentleman's amendment? Those debtors, instead of owning $300, would suddenly be found stripped of every thing--even the gold-headed cane and things of that sort would be covered up by their wives names. If we could reach these cases of fraud, I might be in favor of such a provision; but thinking we can't, I shall vote for the minority report. One gentleman (Mr. Woollen) remarked that we have lived under the present law for twenty years and seen no hardship from its operation.That has been answered by the fact, that $500 now is not equal to $300 twenty years ago.
But I would ask the gentleman if he has ever had occasion to be present when the pittance of $300 has been set off to the debtor; and if so, let him cast his eyes back on that scene and answer the question whether it is sufficient for the support of that debtor's family.
Mr. WILSON of Ripley hoped the House would not concur in the mil crlty report. This question has been well considered by the Judiciary Committee, and it seemed to him that they are as competent as the House to determine the operation of this law. From his observation of its working for twenty years he was unable to say that it works hardships. He had never known a family to suffer because the exemption was inadequate. But where he had observed the hardship, it had been against the creditor. All debtors are not poor men, and all creditors are not rich men. Under this amendment the debtor would exempt $500 from the creditor not worth $50. Besides, when the creditor's property is before the appraisers the impulses of humanity are on his side, and they will exempt more than the fixed amount of exemption. This law is invoked ten times by the fallen and fraudulent debtor, where it is once invoked by the worthy poor debtor. I think the interests of the debtor and creditor classes are identical. We have numerous laws to prevent, to perplex and harass men in the collection of debts, insomuch that we have turned the laws of trade out of their natural channels. And if I was to say what the exemption should be I would be in favor of making it less than it is. I would go as far as any man to exempt the man who is actually worthy; but when we have protected one hundred unworthy for one that is worthy, I think we ought to pause.
Mr. MILLER. I think the conservative views expressed by the gentleman from Morgan and Johnson [Mr. Shirley] are the best. One gentleman thinks the amendment ought to be made lower, another that it ought to be increased, and others that the law ought to stand as it is. If I page: 134[View Page 134]were to propose an exemption law, I would make it a little different from any proposition here. I would provide, in addition to the $300 the debtor now has, that every man should have a reasonable amount exempted to be used in the trade by which he makes his living. But I do not desire to discuss the question. For the purpose mevely of testing the peculiar rules we have adopted, I will move to indefinitely postpone the report of the minority.
The SPEAKER. The motion to amend takes precedence of the motion to postpone.
Mr. CAUTHORN moved to lay the minority report on the table.
Mr. SHIRLEY demanded the yeas and nays; which being ordered and taken, the result was--yeas 59, nays 30--so the minority report was laid on the table.
Mr. KIMBALL moved to recommit the bill, with instructions to amend it by making the exemption $300, and the tools, etc., used in the trade or calling of the debtor, not to exceed $1,000 in value,
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit with the instructions.
Mr. KIMBALL. I do that, because it will enable the family to live, while the debtor will have something wherewith to make a living. Such a provision would embrace and go down to every condition of life. Even the bachelor would have under it a strong inducement to marry. [Laughter.]
The motion was agreed to, and the bill was accordingly recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.
AMENDMENT OF THE RULES
The SPEAKER now directed the consideration of Mr. Kirkpatrick's resolution for amendment of the rules so as to require that all bills receiving a favorable committee report shall be printed.
Mr. BRANHAM hoped it would not be adopted. He might be in favor of such a notion to print all bills ordered to be engrossed, but the House could not know enough about a bill to order the printing because of a favorable report.
The resolution was rejected.
The resolution of Mr. CAUTHORN for the transfer of the State's claim against the Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad Company to certain educational institutions, was taken up when Mr. Cauthorn asked that it be passed over, and its consideration was passed over accordingly by unanimous consent.
Mr. FURNAS submitted a preamble and resolution for the use of the hall of the House of Representatives any day this week after to-morrow (Wednesday) for the Convention of Breeders of Short Horn Cattle, which is about to assemble in this city.
The resolution was adopted.
PURDUE UNIVERSITY.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a memorial, signed by the Trustees of Purdue's University, which was referred to the Committee on Education. [See Appendix.]
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Auditor of State transmitting advance sheets of a portion of his forthcoming report, in compliance with a resolution of the House of the 25th inst.
Mr. LENFESTY, by unanimous consent introduced a bill [H. R. 130] for an act to render uniform the rate of interest on the common school fund of the State (8 per cent.)
The bill was referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. KIMBALL, by consent, a bill [H. R. 131] for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and prescribing a peralty therefor.
It was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Also, a bill [H. R. 132] defining wife whipping, and prescribing punishment therefor. [Any person beating or maltreating his wife is declared a wife whipper, and his punishment on conviction is fixed at a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars, and imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one, nor more than twenty-one years.]
It was refeered to the Committee Rights and Privileges.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. RIGGS, from the Committee on Claims, presented a claim of the Journal Company for $22, and one of Johnston Bros. for $140, recommending that they be allowed. The former was allowed, and the latter withdrawn to be presented to the Senate, the debt having originated with a committee of that body.
The same committee presented the claim of the Journal Company for $1,481 05 for papers furnished members of the last General Assembly.
Mr. CAUTHORN moved to strike out the item for interest. Considerable discussion ensued, when Mr. Offut moved to amend by fixing the interest at six per cent., which amendment was accepted by Mr. Cauthorn.
Mr. WOOLLEN had no doubt the claimants justified the action of members of the last Legislature, which broke up the page: 135[View Page 135]quorum and defeated the appropriation at that time for the payment of the bill, yet he favored the allowance of six per cent. interest
Mr. KIMBALL thought the good accomplished in the defense of the action alluded to was worth something. The Sentinel Company presented a similar claim for interest, and as they had abundantly abused the Legislature for that action they were not deserving of more, and he as a representative of the Journal Company was willing to fix the rate of interest at six per cent.
The motion to fix the interest at six per cent. prevailed, and the report, as amended, was concurred in, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, with instructions to incorporate it in the specific appropriation bill.
The committee reported a like bill from the Sentinel Company, which was similarly disposed of.
Mr. WALKER, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Isenhower's bill [H. R. 89] to amend sections forty-nine and eighty-seven of the act providing for the settlement of decedent's estates, recommending its indefinite postponement.
Mr. MILLER returned Mr. Baxter's bill [H. R. 93] to amend section sixteen of the act to enable persons whose wives are insane to convey real estate, recommending indefinite postponement.
Mr. WOOLLEN returned Mr. Wood's bill [H. R. 74] to amend section nine of the practice act of June 17, 1852, recommending its indefinite postponement; and these reports were severally concurred in.
Mr. SHIRLEY returned his bill [H. R. 30] to amend section 445 of the practice act of June, 1852, with amendment striking out second and third sections. [It provides that where property fails to sell under execution, on the first offer, it may be sold thereafter, by legal notice, for not less than one-half the valuation.]
The amendments were concurred in, and after explanation by Messrs. Woollen, Given, Shirley and Broadus, the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. OGDEN returned Mr. Cobb's bill [H. R. 91] to amend the act of 1852, concerning promissory notes, bills of exchange, etc., and the act of March 11, 1861, recommending indefinite postponement.
It was concurred in.
Mr. Johnson, from the same committee, reported back House bill No. 35, to amend the practice act--declaring who shall be competent witnesses, with an amendment to the first section, and a further amendment striking out the second section, and substituting a new bill instead.
The SPEAKER could not understand the report.
Mr. JOHNSON explained it, but the mystery was not cleared up.
A motion was made to adjourn, but withdrawn. Meanwhile the report of the Judiciary Committee was undisposed of, and was passed over in an informal way, the Speaker insisting that the committee should amend its report, and the Chairman remarking that the committee could not do it.
Mr. GREGORY, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill [H. R. 133] to repeal sections fifty-four and fifty-eight, and amending section forty-seven of the practice act, with regard to amendments in pleadings.
It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GREGORY, a bill [H. R. 134] to fix the time of holding courts in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, (embracing the counties of White, Newton, Jasper, Benton and Tippecanoe.)
It was referred to a select committee interested.
Mr. Gronendyke, Mr. Winn and Mr. Jones, obtained leave of absence for tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. KING the Committee on Railroads was authorized to employ a clerk.
MEMORY OF THE HON. NORMAN EDDY.
Mr. HENDERSON, from the special committee to whom was referred so much of the Governor's Message as refers to the memory of the Hon. Norman Eddy, submitted a report rehearsing the leading facts and events of the public life of Col. Eddy, and the estimation in which his memory is held by the House and the country, and recommending the adoption of the following ;
RESOLVED, That we have learned with profound regret of the death of Colonel Norman Eddy, and feel that the State in his death has lost a valuable and worthy citizen.
RESOLVED, That the House specially commends the noble action of his Excellency, Governor Baker, in filling the vacancy in the office of Secretary of State caused by his death, and hope the precedent will never be departed from in future by any one having the power of appointment in like cases.
RESOLVED, That appreciating the ability and eminent public services rendered the country in council and in the field by the decedent we commend his widow and children to the sympathy and tender regard of his fellow citizens without regard to party predilections.
RESOLVED, That a copy of the above resolutions be forwarded to the family of the decedent by the Clerk of this House.
The report of the committee was concurred in, and the resolutions were adopted by a rising vote.
The House then adjourned.
