ATTORNEY'S FEES IN NOTES.
He also returned the bill [S. 241] declaring all agreements to pay Attorneys fees in notes and written agreements, as illegal, with the same recommendation.
Mr. Harney said the bill is to meet a state of affairs recently grown up, which does great injury and which is founded upon a proposition that no man can go into court withoutan understanding that an attorney must be paid by the victim. It is simply usury, it is not founded upon equality, and can do no public good. It has grown up by custom and usage in contravention to law. You have the same right to say the maker of the note shall pay you five per cent in addition to the sum named. It is nothing but grinding usury.
Mr. Brown favored the passage of the bill being opposed to the principle that the borrower shall pay the expenses of the lender's litigation. It is a wrong and an injustice; and honest judges have invoked the Legislature to pass some such bill as this. He hoped the report of the Committee would not be concurred in.
Mr. Orr also opposed concurrence in the Committees report and favored the passage of the bill.
Mr. O'Brien. The bill belongs to a class of legislation that he is opposed to. The Committee are of opinion that it is not the business of the page: 174[View Page 174] Legislature to regulate contracts between men. Men will make foolish contracts, and they should fulfill their contracts; therefore, he hoped this bill and all bills of its class will fail to pass.
Mr. Steele, entered his protest against concurrence in this report. He thought it right to interpose obstacles to the making of improvident contracts. He characterized the Attorney fee clause as a decent way for stealing. This law should be stricken from the statute book.
Mr. Bunyan demanded the previous question, but there was no second.
The Senate refused to concur in the report of the Committee by yeas 17, nays 28.
Mr. O'Brien moved to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee.
On motion of Mr. Slater this motion was laid on the table.
