AFTERNOON SESSION.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR took the Chair at 2 o'clock and announced the order of messages from the House requiring action on the part of the Senate.
The bill [H. R. 3] to repeal the act for the construction of levees, dykes and drains, of May 22, 1869, and the act supplemental thereto, approved February, 23, 1871, and saving from the operation of the bill all works ten miles and under in length, coming up -
Mr. HUBBARD said that a bill to the same effect had passed both Houses and become a law, and moved that it be indefinitely postponed. He subsequently withdrew the motion and the bill passed to its second reading.
The bill [H. R. 152] to amend an act for tbe incorporation of railroads, to require railroad companies to file annually with the Secretary of State full reports of the business of the roads, was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
The bill [H. R. 115] to repeal the act of April 23, 1859, to regulate the sale of patent rights, was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
The bill [H. R. 157] to amend the act of March 11, 1867, declaring abandoned certain unfinished railroads, &c., was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
EXEMPTION INCREASE.
Mr. BROWN from the select committee thezeon, returned his exemption bill [S. 147] with a substitute bill, whose principal section provides that an amount of property not exceeding $1,000 in value, owned by any resident householder, married man, or head of a family, dependent upon him or her for support, shall not be liable to sale on execution or any other final process for any debt founded on contract, expressed or implied.
Mr B. moved that the report be concurred in, and that the bill be put on its passage.
Mr. NEFF. If this bill applies to contracts passed as well as in the future it is wrong.
Mr STEELE. I understand that question has been decided by the Supreme Court that it will not.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to concur in the report of the Committee with an amendment that when the head of the family does not claim the exemption, the right may be claimed by his wife or any one of his family dependent on him for support.
Mr. BROWN accepted the amendment.
Mr. DAGGY opposed the amendment because we have a law passed in 1857, and one March 11, 1867, that fully covers the point. He said the laws already secured to the wife the same rights more explicitly than would be done by the amendment. He read the section to which he referred, which provided that in the absence of the husband the wife might claim the exemption and file the schedule. In regard to the other proposition that this law may be retroactive he found by the reference to the ninth Indiana Reports, page 38, that it will be prospective and not retroactive and can apply only to expressed and implied contracts in the future.
Mr. CHAPMAN. The wife has no rights when the husband is present. My amendment is that she may claim the same rights as if she were absent from him; and if he has no wife any one of his household may have the right to claim the exemption. The law the Senator read refers to the man as the head of the family; and the other part of the section he refered to is predicated on the same principle. Therefore I think the objection of the Senator is not well taken. There is no law provided to cover the object of the amendment I have offered and which has been accepted by the author of the bill.
Mr. C. insisted that the sections read by the Senator from Putnam [Mr. Daggy,] did not give the wife the rights conferred by his amendment. The present law only confers these rights on the wife when the husband was absent. His amendment provided that in case of his failure, present or absent, to claim the exemption, she, or any member of the family may do so.
Mr. WILLIAMS. For many years we have had a law exempting $300, from sale on execution, and I have heard no complaint against it. It is a wide range from $300 to $1,000 and then you are offering to the man twice the amount of property the widow gets when her husband dies. Now you propose to give to the man $1,000 but when he dies you will let the creditors take $500 of that away from his widow!
Mr. BROWN thought this bill would be an act of justice to both debtor and creditor. He believed, with the Senator from St. Joseph, [Mr. Hubbard] that the best thing for the debtor would be to give him a liberal exemption law and enact sharp collection laws. The collection laws of the State of Indiana are more loose than in many other States, and that is one of the reasons why the rate of interest is page: 315[View Page 315] so high and why men are prevented from investing their money in commercial enterprises here.
Mr. STEELE objected that to confer the right to claim the benefit of the exemption law upon any member of the family was going too far. Any one of a dozen children might claim the benefit in opposition to the wishes of both father and mother.
Mr. HARNEY had grave objections to both the bill and the amendment. The Constitution contemplated only that the debtor should be secured in the enjoyment of the necessarycomforts of life, and he thought $1,000 morethan was necessary to comply with the benefits contemplated by the Constitution. A man owning $800 worth of property should be just as liable to pay his debts as a man owning $1,000 worth. Michigan and Illinois has been referred to as examples of the beneficent effects of a liberal exemption law. The benefits were not so real as they appeared. In one of those States where forty acres of land are exempt, the lands of nearly all the small landholders are mortgaged because no credit will be given them, on account of this exemption, without the security of a mortgage. If they have no real estate there are chattel mortgages, and it is unsafe to buy either real estate or chattel property in some of those States without first examining the records to see that it is unencumbered. So such laws are not so much for the benefit of the poor man as some gentlemen seem to think. The poor man, who is honest, will generally give up all that is not absolutely necessary for the immediate comfort of his family, to satisfy his debts, while the man that is disposed to do wrong is the man who receives the larger amount of this benefit. There is many a man now doing business whose property will not inventory $1,000 and yet whose in credit is good. Pass this bill and exempt his entire property from liability for his debts and his credit will be gone and his business broke up. He believed the result of such a measure would be most disastrous to the poor man, and would bring about a state of affairs not desirable by the people. It has not been petitioned for by the poor; in fact there has been complaint that the present exemption law operates so as to deny them the credit they should have because mean men are continually taking advantage of it.
Mr. GLESSNER moved to amend by striking $1,000 and inserting $800.
Mr. STEELE moved to lay the motion on the table.
Mr. BROWN raised the point of order that, the bill being on the third reading, Mr. Glessner's motion was out of order.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR decided the point of order not well taken. The amendment was laid on the table by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Brown, Carnahan, Chapman, Friedley of Lawrence, Hall, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbardy Oliver, Rhodes, Bingo, Sarnighausen, Scott, Steele, Taylor, Winterbotham - 22.
NAYS Messrs Beeson, Bunyan, Cave, Collett, Daggy, Daugherty, Dwiggins, Fuller, Francisco, Friedley of Scott, Glessner, Gooding, Gregg, Miller, Neff, Orr, Slater, Stroud, Williams - 19.
Mr. WILLIAMS raised the point of order that laying the amendment on the table carried the whole subject with it.
The LIEUTENANT GONERNOR decided the point not well taken.
Mr. WILLIAMS said his objection to the bill was that it gave the husband $1,000 exemption while the widow has a dower of but $500. He moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Rights and Privileges, with instructions to strike out $1,000 and insert $500 so as to place the husband and widow on an equality.
Mr. BROWN moved to lay the motion on the table.
His motion was rejected by, yeas 15, nays 27.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. GOODING when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said, he would like to see the widows' dower equal the amount exempted from sale on execution.
Mr. ORR in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said he could not vote for the bill in its present shape because it makes too great a stride - from $500 to $1,000.
Mr. SCOTT when his name was called said: I want to explain my vote. I do not understand this matter as some Senators here. I think a wife has this right in case of the death of her husband: If an execution is issued in the life time of the husband he has a right to claim the exemption, but suppose he dies with an execution in the hands of an officer, what becomes of it? Can he go on and seize the personal property? Of course he can't. The wife has a right to it, and the exemption can't take it. So for all the purposes of this Senate we don't need the amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS [interposing] referred to the act of February 19, 1859, where the officer is authorized to take articles not exceeding $500 in value.
Mr. SCOTT. When the husband dies the Sheriff or Constable cannot take he personal property of the dead man.
Mr. BROWN. I would like to suggest that this law would be a protection to the widow;to the woman if she out lives her husbandthat there will be $500 worth of property left.
Mr. SCOTT. The question before the Senate is, whether in case of the death of a husband the officer can seize the property, having failed to do so in the life time of the husband?
page: 316[View Page 316]I understand he cannot; therefore there is no necessity for the proposed amendment. There is no reason why the family should be deprived of the $500, while the husband lives. I therefore favor the motion to lay on the table.
The vote was then announced, as above recorded.
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Lawrence, made the point that Mr. Williams' motion was out of order, the question on the adoption of the report having been stated, and the Secretary ordered to call the roll before the motion was made.
The Chair held the point well taken. Some discussion followed, when -
Mr. BROWN moved to recommit to a special committee of three, with instructions to strike out $1,000 and insert $500.
Mr. GOODING moved to amend by substituting $600, which Mr. Brown accepted.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved ineffectually - yeas 17, nays 24that Mr. Brown's motion as amended, be laid on the table.
The motion was then agreed to.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR at once announced the Committee viz: Messrs. Brown, Glessner and Hough.
Mr. BROWN from this select Committee immediately reported in favor of striking out $1,000 and inserted $600, and recommended the passage of the bill. The report was concurred in, and the bill was passed by the following vote:
YEAS - Messrs. Beeson, Bird, Boone, Brown, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Collett, Daggy, Daugherty, Friedley, of Lawrence, Glessner, Gooding, Gregg, Hall, Haworth, Hough, Hubbard, Oliver, Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Scott, Steele, Sleeth, Taylor, Winterbotham - 27.
NAYS - Messrs. Beardsley, Bowman, Bunyan, Dwiggins, Fuller, Francisco, Friedley of Scott, Harney, Howard, Miller, Neff, Sarnighausen, Slater, Stroud, and Williams - 15.
Mr. DWIGGINS explaining his negative vote:he could vote for $500 exemption but would not vote for $600.
HOUSE BILLS READ THE FIRST TIME.
The bill [H. R. 128] empowering the Board of Trustees of any incorporated town to compel the owners of lots to plant, maintain and protect shade trees -
The bill [H. R. 118] making the parties competent witnesses as to certain matters in actions by executors or administrators upon contracts assigned to the decedentswhere the assignor is alive and a competent witness -
The bill [H. R. 64] making the first day of January, fourth day of July, Thanksgiving days twenth-fifth day of December and all general State and National election days, legal holidays -
The bill [H. R. 112] to make wives competent to testify in actions brought for injuries done to them -
The bill [H. R. 138] to amend section 2 of the act authorizing cities and towns to issue bonds for the erection or completion of school buildings approved March 11, 1867The bill [H. R. 174] to amend section 32 of the general city incorporation law, approved March, 14, 1867 -
The bill [H. R. 123] prescribing time for the transaction of road business, and the appointment of superintendent and physician for the poor -
The bill [H. R. 171] prescribing the manner of selecting petit jurors for the Circuit and Common Pleas Court -
The bill [H. R. 130] to render uniform the rate of interest [8 per cent.] on the common school funds of the State of Indiana -
The bill [H. R. 177] fixing the time of holding courts in the first Judicial Circuit -
The bill [H. R. 136] to amend section 647 of the General Practice Act of June 18, 1852 -
The bill [H. R. 56] authorizing the appropriation of money out of the State Treasury for the use of the Indiana University -
The bill [H. R. 210] to amend section 20 of the act establishing a Reformatory Prison for Females -
The bill [H. R. 218] to amend section 208 of the General Practice Act of June 18, 1852 -
[Mr. DWIGGINS gave notice that on tomorrow he should move to amend the rules by increasing the number of Standing Committees and adding a Committee on Woman's Suffrage.]
The bill [H. R. 214] to amend section 25 and 26 of the act of May 14, 1852, regulating descents and apportionment of estates -
The bill [H. R. 170] to amend the 157th and 664th sections of the General Practice Act of June 18, 1852 -
The bill [H. R. 178] to amend section 1 of the act to amend section 77 of the act of June 17, 1852, regulating the code of Practice -
The bill [H. R. 167] to preserve the original manuscript journals of the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Indiana -
The bill [H. R. 188] to amend section 433 of the act of June 18, 1852, regulating the Code of Practice -
Were read the first time and severally passed to the second reading.
(On motion of Mr. Rhodes, the bill [H. R. 241] to give security to persons who contract with railroad companies to perform work, was referred to the Committee on Railroads.)
COAL MINES AND COLLIERES.
The bill [H. R. 230] regulating coal mines and the working thereof - coming up -
On motion by Mr. Hall the constitutional restriction was dispensed with - yeas 37, nays 4the bill read by title only for the first and second reading.
Mr. SLATER moved its reference to the Judiciary Committee.
page: 317[View Page 317]Mr. SCOTT moved to amend by referring the bill to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. SMITH made an ineffectual motion to lay this motion on the table.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to lay the bill on the table.
The Presiding Officer, [Mr. Dwiggins in the Chair,] decided the motion out of order.
Mr. WILLIAMS appealed from this decision.
Mr. SCOTT said there are two bills here on this subject, both very important, differing widely, and requiring a great deal of thought and investigation. He thought a Committee - ought to be sent to the mines to make an investigaion as to which is the better bill - the one pressed by the proprietors, or the one desired by the minors. The Committee on Rights and Privileges should carefully consider these bills and go to the mines in order to secure intelligent action.
Mr. GOODING believed legislation is necessary to the safety of minors; and if that be the only question between these parties there would be no need of sending a Committee to determine it.
Mr. WILLIAMS now sent up his appeal inwriting, but was willing to withdraw it if the other bill on this subject be read the secondtime and sent to the same Committee.
Mr. Friedley, of Lawrence, moved to amendby refering the bill to a select Committee offive which Committee will also consider Mr.Daggy's bill [S. 205] regulating coal mines and working thereof.
The motion was agreed to and the bill was read the second time and so referred.
Mr. TAYLOR gave notice that he should move to-morrnw for the appointment of a standing Committee on Mines and Mining.
The bill [H. R. 200] to authorize Boards of County Commissioners to equalize local county bounty to soldiers was read the first time.
The Senate then adjourned till to-morrow at 10 o'clock A. M.
