STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
On motion of Mr. Smith his bill [H. R. 384] to repeal section 224 of the Practice Act of June 18, 1852, and declaring an emergency, was taken up on the final reading.
Mr. Smith stated the object of the bill to be simply the repeal of that section 224 which provides that the statute of limitation shall bar the officers of State and of the United States as other parties; and after further debate Mr. Edwards, of Vigo (Mr. Walker in the chair) moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to inquire and report as to the expediency of repealing that section of the statute of limitations and whether it would not be expedient for the proper officers at once to prosecute all defaulting persons. Messrs. Edwards, of Vigo, Peed, Shirley, Miller, Buskirk, Branham and Smith took part in the debate that followed, till on the motion of Mr. Shirley, Mr. Edwards of Vigo's motion was laid on the table - yeas, 53; nays, 31and then the bill was finally passed the House of Representatives by the following vote. (Yeas, 61; nays, 21):
Yeas - Messrs. Barker, Baxter, Billingsley, Bowser, Branham, Brett, Broadus, Buskirk, Butterworth, Butts, Clary, Claypool, Cobb, Coffman, Cole, Cowgill, Crumpacker, Dial, Dunham, Edwards of Lawrence, Ellsworth, Eward, Glasgow, Goudie, Hatch, Hedrick, Heller, Henderson, Hollingsworth, Hoyer, Isenhour, Johnson, Kirkpatrick, Martin, McConnell, McKinney, Miller, North, Olde, Offutt, Ogden, Peed, Prentiss, Reeves, Reno, Richardson, Rudder, Rumsey, Satterwhite, Schmuck, Shirley, Shutt, Smith, Stanley, Teeter, Tulley, Walker, Willard, Wilson of Blackford, and Wynn - 61.
Nays - Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Barrett, Blocher, Cauthorn, Cline, Edwards of Lawrence, Gifford, Gronendyke, Jones, Kimball, King, Lenfesty, Spellman, Thayer, Tingley, Thompson of Elkhart, Thompson of Spencer, Troutman, Wesner, Whitworth, Wood, Woodard, and Mr. Speaker - 24.
Pending the call for the yeas and nays -
Mr. Barrett asked leave to make an explanation of his vote; which the Speaker (Mr. Walker being in the chair) decided to be out of order, under the consistent rulings of the Speaker of the House; whereupon, Mr. Barrett submitted his appeal in writing: "The Speaker having decided that pending the call of the roll, when the name of a member is called, he can not explain his vote; from that we respectfully appeal to the judgment of the House."
(Signed) BARRETT.
Mr. Tully submitted a point of order, that an appeal requires two names; whereupon Mr. Heller also signed the appeal.
Mr. Walker (Mr. Offutt in the chair) read the sixth rule under which the Speaker has uniformly decided that no explanation, remark, or debate can be had on the proposition before the House after the yeas and nays have been ordered and the first name has been called. He did not propose to defend his ruling, but simply to adhere to it, as the ruling of the Speaker of the House; but if we were to call 100 names here, and each member were allowed to explain his vote, it would be a practice that would stifle legislation.
Mr. Lenfesty held that the language of rule six, can not be tortured so as to mean what the gentleman assumes; and it was not so construed in the other end of the capitol.
Mr. Johnson hoped that the House would not be guilty of the folly of allowing members here to rise and explain their votes. This was a good and wholesome rule. The proper time to explain the vote was when the proposition is under discussion. The other course would be unjust to the House and an extravagant waste of time. He hoped the House would confirm the rulings of one of the ablest speakers that ever sat in that chair.
The decision of the chair was confirmed without, a division.
Messrs. Brett and McConnell obtained leave of absence till Tuesday.
