THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME SEVENTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, Feb. 6.1879-- 10 o'clock a. m.After prayer by Rev. Mr. Cook--
Mr. Menzies moved to dispense with the reading of the Secretary's minutes of yesterday's proceedings, which was succeeded by other motions by the same senator for a suspension of the regular order of business, that the concurrent resolution passed the House of Representatives last Saturday, (and printed in these reports of that day,) be taken up, and that the Senate adopt said resolution, and on these several motions he demanded the previous question.
Mr. Streight and other senators demanded, a division of the question.
The yeas and nays were demanded on almost every vote, and the Senate was equally divided, the lieutenant governor giving the casting vote, and thus the Senate was brought to the question of adoption or rejection of the resolution by the following vote:
Yeas--Messrs. Benz, Briscoe, Burrell, Coffey, Davis, Donham, Foster, Fowler, Hart, Hefron, Kent, Kramer, Leeper, Major, Menzies, Peterson, Riley, Sarnighausen, Tarlton, Traylor, Urmston, Viehe, Wood, Woollen, Winterbotham, Mr. President--26.
Nays--Messrs, Cadwallader, Comstock, Davenport, Dice, Garrigus, Grubbs, Harris, Heilman, Kahlo, Langdon,Mercer, Moore, Olds, Poindexter, Ragan, Reeve, Shaffer, Shirk, Smith, Straight, Taylor, Treat, Trusler, Weir, Wilson--25.
The Senate having thus agreed to consider the House concurrent resolution now, it was read by the clerk, when--
Mr. Grubbs moved to amend by striking out all that refers to electing a president of the several boards, and by striking out the word "two," where it refers to the election of trustees or commissioners, and inserting in lieu the word "one." He said no more important matter can come before the General Assembly than questions concerning the management of the benevolent institutions of the State. Such questions ought to be left outside of any political view whatever. We are governed, or should be governed, by law in this matter of electing officers of these benevolent institutions. We have no authority to elect a single one of them, though they all be vacant, unless it be in pursuance of the law approved March 5,1859. Not only is this power conferred by that law, but the time and circumstances under which we shall exercise those powers are fixed as well, and fixed in a way from which there can be no evasion by any session of the General Assembly until the law be changed. Two trustees at first were to be elected for each of these institutions, one to serve two years and the other four years, What was the purposes of the General Assembly in enacting that provision? Evidently that we might always have one man in the control of each institution who, by experience would be acquainted with its needs and wants. so there may never come a new and untried hoard. So the law provides that at each biennial session thereafter there shall be elected one member and not two. Vacancies by death, resignation or otherwise are provided for in a way perfectly consistent with the provisions of the first section of the act, If a vacancy is filled, the statute says it shall be for the unexpired term. That is the legislative interpretation of what is meant by this law. It does not take a lawyer to interpret the provisions of this law; its provisions are so plain and clear that no man need err in the interpretation of it. It provides that the biennial session of the Legislature shall only have the power, under any contingency, to elect but one member of the several boards of the benevolent institutions, while this resolution asks the Senate to take the law in its own hands and elect two. How is it with the president of the boards? The time, under the law, to elect occurred in 1877. The Legislature exercised its right and power and did elect, for a term of four years, the man who holds the position to day, and we have no right to elect again in 1879. The law provides that when elected he must be elected for the term of for the term of four years, and, as shown by a report from the secretary of state, made to the Senate yesterday, the term expired in 1877.
When Mr. G. had concluded--
page: 115[View Page 115]Mr. MENZIES moved that the amendment [Mr. Grubbs'] be rejected and on that motion demanded the previous question.
Mr. REEVE appealed to the senator to withdraw the demand for the previous question to allow a motion to postpone the election till Thursday, February 13.
Mr. VIEHE declared that unless there is time given to consider this matter further he should vote for the amendment.
Mr. MENZIES withdrew his demand for the previous question.
Mr. VIEHE suggested to the senator from Morgan [Mr. Grubbs] to withdraw his amendment and allow the senator from Marshall [Mr. Reeve] to submit his motion.
Mr. GRUBBS: Only upon this consideration, that when this resolution comes up if we desire to offer amendments we shall have the privilege of so doing without being bound by the previous question or having it called upon us. If gentlemen will consent to that 1 will willingly withdraw my amendment. ["Consent." "Consent."]
Mr. MENZIES moved that the further consideration of this resolution be postponed till Thursday, the 13th instant, at 2 o'clock p. m.
The motion was agreed to by--yeas 37, nays 12.
Mr. FOSTER offered the following:
Resolved, By the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, that our senators and representatives in Congress are respectfully request at the earliest day practicable to uses their best endeavors to secure the passage by Congress of a law preventing the uniform discrimination on the part of railways and other transportation companies in the different elates in rates against shippers, and to protect shippers against loss by reason of frequent changes in rates of transportation.
It was adopted by--yeas 37, nays 6.
The Senate took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. FOSTER the bill [S. 277--the judiciary committee's] concerning interest and usury was taken up. By consent the report of the committee of the whole, submitted January 31, was set aside and the bill considered by sections.
Mr. HEFRON offered a substitute for section 1, making the rate of interest 6 per cent.
Mr. HARRIS moved to amend the substitute so that citizens may receive the same rate of interest changed by the State on school fund loans. He insisted that it would not be consistent to make the legal rate of interest, less than the rate charged by the State for loans of congressional and other foods. You can not regulate by law the price of money any more than you can regulate the price of farm pro ducts. Money in this city is now being loaned at 6 and 8 per cent. The price for the use or forbearance of money must be fixed by supply and demand and the kind of security offered. it would be a misfortune for the people if the Legislature were to create a 6 per cent. law. He was willing an 8 per cent. law should be passed, for it, is not fair to say that our citizens shall ask and receive a rate less than the rate asked and received by the State government. The effect of such a substitute as the one pending would be to drive money into the purchase of government bonds and out of the regular channels of trade.
Mr HEFRON: Whenever the question comes up for us to determine the rate the State hall charge for her loans, then will be the time for us to consider such a proposition as is contained in the amendment proposed by the senator from Marion, [Mr. Harris.] Debts are created in 1,000 different ways other than in borrowing money, and it is to cover these larger mass of dealings, that the substitute is its tended to affect. This question of interest ought to be fixed at a right, and proper standing. Is it the borrower or the poor men of the State who are insisting the rate of interest shall be kept up at 8 or 10 per cent ? It is the capitalists on this floor and in the lobbies who are insisting on the higher rate, while the people at large are demanding a reduction. We should not cater to a favored few, but enact measures that will benefit the masses of the people.
Mr. REEVE protested against this pretense of discussing an interest law identically the same with the one now on the statute book. The question he desired the Senate to meet Is whether or not it will change the limit to which citizens shall go in agreements to pay for the use of money :--shall citizens have the privilege of contracting for money at a greater rate of interest than six per cent? It is not in the power of the Legislature to say a citizen shall not do a flung unless that thing is contrary to public morals or contrary to the preservation of the public liberty, person or property. He denied the assertion that the people are clamoring for a reduction of the legal rate of interest, which is now, as the statute provides, six per cent. In view of all the foreign loans in this State, renewals are absolutely necessary to prevent general bankruptcy; and is the Senate prepared to say the people shall not have this privilege if they choose to exercise it? Will this Senate say to them: your lands must go, you shall not have the privilege of renewing the loans you now have?
Mr. BURRELL: The proposition to amend the substitute is provided for in the 9th section of this bill, and that effectually does away with the pending amendment. The question of interest has always been a subject of legislation, and every Democrat upon this floor comes here well instructed upon this question. We all know no man can promise to pay ten per cent, interest, or he does not intend to pay the principal. Shall the capitalist be allowed to loan his money at an exhorbitant rate of interest and so keep the poor man down? Certainly not. He would follow instructions, and let the responsibility rest with his constituents.
Mr. FOSTER believing we have enough votes to carry this question through, demanded the previous question. The demand was seconded by the Senate upon a division--affirmative 29, negative 17, and the main question ordered by yeas 32, nays 17.
Under the operation of the previous question the amendment [Mr. Harris'] was rejected by yeas 24, nays 26, and the substitute [Mr. Hefron's] was also rejected by yeas 23, nays 27.
Mr. HARRIS moved that section 1 be adopted, and on that motion demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate, and under its operation the first section was adopted by yeas 48, nays 8, in the following words:
"That the interest, on the loan or forbearance of money, goods or things in action, when the parties do not agree on the rate, shall be six dollars a year on one hundred dollars, and at that rate for a greater or less sum, or for a shorter or longer time, but it may be taken yearly, or for a shorter period in advance. And no agreement to pay a higher rate shall be valid unless the same be in writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby, and in such case it shall not be lawful to contract for more than eight per centum per annum."
Mr. FOWLER offered a substitute for section 2, that judgments hereafter rendered shall bear the rate of six per cent., provided nothing herein shall be construed so as to prevent the page: 116[View Page 116] taking of a higher rate or contracts already made.
Mr. STREIGHT insisted the section as it stands in the bill is better than the proposed substitute.
Mr. BURRELL moved to strike from the substitute the proviso.
Mr. HARRIS believed in cultivating a reasonable degree of commercial integrity. The proposed amendment would act as an incentive to men not to pay their debts, and consequently is not right. The section as in the bill is far preferable.
Mr. MENZIES regarded the substitute as effectually restoring the law as it was previous to February, 1873. While the section as in the bill would leave the law as it has been since that date.
Mr. HEFRON: The argument made by the advocates of this bill the other day was, that if a rate of six per cent were enacted, the people of this State would not renew their loans. If Senators were honest in that argument they ought not to support this measure; for this substitute would enable the borrower to evade the danger that would otherwise surround him.
Mr. STREIGHT: As the law now stands the judgment follows the rate of the note, not exceeding ten per cent interest. He moved that the substitute be rejected.
Mr. FOWLER thought the substitute would prevent the harassing of the people by the taking of judgments. Under it the borrower will be indulged for mouths and probably years. If there is a question before the Legislature the people feel a great interest in; it is this very question of interest. He desired senators to act upon this matter with great care and deliberation. The section as it now stands should not be adopted. The substitute will afford great relief to a large class of our people.
Mr. STREIGHT demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate, and under its operation the substitute and amendment were both rejected by one vote. Sections was adopted without amendment by--yeas 29, nays 20--in the following words:
"All judgments in contracts hereafter rendered shall bear the same rate of interest expressed in the contract. The court rendering the judgment shall specify therein the rate of interest the sum shall bear. In other cases the rate shall be six per cent."
And then the Senate adjourned.
