EXEMPTION INCREASE.
On motion of Mr. Brown his bill [S. 47] for an act to exempt certain personal property from sale on execution, was read the third time. [In addition to the exemptions already allowed, all family pictures, school books and family bible; one yoke of oxen or one span of horses and harness; farming and agricultural implements not exceeding in value the sum of three hundred dollars; the tools of any mechanic or laborer not exceeding three hundred dollars; the library and instruments of professional men not exceeding in value five hundred dollars - these values to be ascertained by the exemption law of February 17, 1852, and all supplemental acts thereto.]
Mr. SLATER opposed the bill because it makes a distinction between the laboring man and professional men.
Mr. S. said the bill discriminated against farmers, giving them but $300 exemption, and to professional men $500. He could not sustain that.
Mr. BOONE suggested that fishing tackle be included in the list of exemptions, which Mr. Brown said he would accept.
Mr. HOUGH also opposed any distinction in favor of professional men, and unless amended in that particular he should vote against the bill. He would be in favor of increasing the amount to five hundred dollars all the way through the bill.
On motion of Mr. BROWN and by common consent the bill was amended so as to make the value of property exempt in all cases $500.
Mr. DWIGGINS opposed the bill inasmuch as laborers seldom have five hundred dollars worth of tools, while professional men usually have more than that much. If there should be an exemption of this kind, why not say that the exemption should be for eight hundred dollars instead of three hundred, and let it remain with the party who takes the benefit of it to select the property he desires. He saw no impropriety in naming the articles to be exempted. He was opposed to as great an exemption as eight hundred dollars. It is the experience of every man who has been a practicing lawyer that the men who take advantage of the three hundred dollar exemption law are men not inclined to pay their debts, but men who do it for the purpose of swindling their creditors. The object of exemption laws is not to benefit the creditor but to prevent pauperism. In theory, every dollars worth of property a debtor has belongs to his creditors. Exemption laws are enacted for the purpose of preventing public pauperism. Is it public policy now to make an exemption of eight hundred dollars instead of three? I do not think it is. I am opposed to making it eight hundred dollars. I think it the worst policy the State can adopt. It would drive men away from the State who would otherwise come to spend their money here, because they would say: "If we go into business and sell on credit we can't collect," therefore they are forced to adopt one of the two systems: either not do any business or do a cash business.
Mr. HOUGH referred to the effect of exemption laws in the States of Michigan and Illinois. The law in Michigan exempts forty acres of land and all a man can put on it, and still, that State, younger than ours with a similar population is quite as prosperous. So with the State of Illinois; and are men going to say that they are kept from engaging in business because the people can give such large exemption? He was not apprehensive any such result would ensue. He did not suppose the provision of this bill would benefit professional men especially, but if enacted into a law it will be for the benefit of a class who need its protection.
Mr. BROWN. It is well known that in a great many States certain specific articles of property belonging to a debtor are exempted from sale on execution, and it was thought best by some to have something of that sort in this bill. Upon reflection I think it will perhaps meet the view of the Senate better if we increase the amount; and for the purpose of taking the sense of the Senate whether it prefers simply to increase the amount of exemption I will move to refer the bill to a special committee of three with instructions to strike out so much as refers to specific articles to be exempted and bring in a bill to increase the amount of property now allowed to be exempted to eight hundred dollars.
Mr. SCOTT opposed this motion. This bill has been drawn for the purpose of exempting not a certain amount of money from sale and seizure, but such tools as are necessary as a means of livelihood - to allow men to retain for their own use and for the protection of their families such articles or things as they are in the habit of making their livelihood with. You take away from a mechanic his tools and he is in a manner without obtaining his living. Take from a lawyer or a phypician his library and he is in the same fix. Taking this view of the case five hundred dollars to a lawyer is no more in amount than one hundred dollars to a carpenter or a blacksmith. When gentlemen say that we are discriminating in favor of professionial men, gentlemen don't understand, the purpose of the bill. I am in favor of an exemption of eight hundred dollars, or a thousand dollars, or a homestead. I am in favor of every family having a place where it can flee to, and cannot be disturbed by any bodv, and I think the prosperity of the State could be vastly increased if every head of a family had a half acre of ground to page: 313[View Page 313] put all the improvement upon he might, and so guarded that nobody could touch it. I would not be afraid of injury to the State by such a law. It is not the history of a State adjoining us. Look at the prosperity of an adjoining State in population-an increase almost double that of Indiana - because she gives her citizens an abiding home. This bill is a step in the right direction because it proposes to leave in the hands of men the means of making an honest livelihood. I hope the bill will pass in its present shape, keeping in view the idea of leaving in the hands of every man the tools he has been useing heretofore, so that he may not be driven to a new business.
Mr. BOONE read the 22nd section, Article 1, of the Constitution, as follows: "The privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life, shall be recognized by wholesome laws, exempting a reasonable amount of property from seizure or sale for the payment of any debt or liability hereafter contracted ; and there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud."
He thought the meaning of this provision was, that the exemption to be provided for by law should be in amount and not in specific articles. Thus allowing the debtor to select what he thought would most conduce to his comfort or prosper his business. He could readily see that where specific articles were exempted, some would not have them or only a part of them; whilst others might have all of them and yet if driven to select what would add most to their comfort or business would choose other property than the articles exempted.
In practice it would operate unfairly and unequally. He thought therefore that the bill was in conflict with the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and would oppose it in its present shape. He would favor an increase of the amount of exemption.
The exemption of $300, was fixed in 1852, and was quite as much then to a debtor as $800, or a $1000, would be now. He desired that the reference should be made.
No one could desire that debtors who were unfortunate should be reduced to pauperism. It could result in no good to creditors in a majority of cases nor to the public; but the contrary.
Mr HUBBARD. It seems to me this bill is a step in the right direction. I have alwaysbelieved that the true policy of every Statewas to pass liberal exemption and sharp collection laws. We have to-day appraisement laws that strike just those cases which they should not. After that we have redemption laws that still further put off the collection of debts. Our laws, in this respect, are perhaps more liberal than those of any of the surrounding States. On the other hand, we have an exemption law that is more beggarly than that in any of the neighboring States, and perhaps in any other State. Illinois allows an exemption not exceeding in value one thousand dollars, and Michigan 40 acres of land with the improvements on it; while Indiana only allows an exemption of three hundred dollars. Whichever way this bill is shaped I propose to vote for it, believing it to be one of the best measures proposed this session. I fail to see the force of the argument of the Senator from Vigo [Mr. Scott.] A man is supposed to know what is best for himself, and under this bill, should it become a law; laborers can select such tools as they please; and the exemption is for their benefit. If the exemption is raised to eight hundred dollars every person is presumed to use it for the purpose of saving articles most necessary in order to get an honest livelihood. On the other hand I see where it may operate against the laborer; he may own other property subject to execution under the act and his tools may not amount to over one hundred dollars, while a lawyer's library is no library at all unless it amounts to more than five hundred dollars. Now it seems to me the object will be better saved by raising the exemption to eight hundred dollars than by leaving it open to specific articles, because it will be safe to say that every man will save what is most necessary for his family. Such a measure would subserve the purpose better of preserving the State from pauperism.
Mr. ORR said he was in favor of the bill and hoped it would pass; - that the enactment of such a law would be a great encouragement to the poor man; it would stimulate him to use all honorable efforts to become owner of the amount of property exempt from execution as set forth in the bill. I cannot think as some Senators in this chamber have expressed themselves, that the passage of the bill would be a great injury to the poor man; that is he could get no credit under it. My judgement is that it would give him more credit. But that is not all, the great merit in this measure is, that the bill if enacted would secure to the poor wife and helpless little children $500, from the grasp of the money sharks of our country.
Mr. STEELE. I think it better to make this law apply to everybody than to make it apply to certain articles of property. I think the amount, instead of being five hundred dollars or eight hundred dollars, should be at least one thousand dollars to place it at what would be a reasonable sum. Of course it will not effect contracts that have heretofore been made. I think it will have a beneficial effect on society if we declare that one thousand dollars worth of property shall be exempt from execution. Sometimes a lawyer would like to have his library exempt; on the other hand he may have a good home for his wife and children that is still more dear to him than his library. Allow page: 314[View Page 314] him to retain what he chooses. If the law exempts his library and books alone, he would have no choice. I hope if this bill is referred to a committee that the committee will be unrestricted as to the amount.
Mr. Brown modified his motion so that the instructions to the committee shall be for a $1000 exemption.
The motion was agreed to.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR made the committee to consist of Messrs. Brown, Hough and Glessner.
And then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
