THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME SEVENTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, Jan. 22,1879-- 10 o'clock a. m.After the order of prayer by the senator from Monroe and Lawrence [Rev.W. B. F. Treat].
This being Wednesday, under the rules the first order of business is the consideration of bills on the third reading. There being none on the calendar, the next thing in order is bills on the second reading.
The bill [S. 16--Mr. Dice's] in relation to change of venue in preliminary cases before justices of the peace, coming up with a committee report, recommending its indefinite postponement--
Mr. DICE thought the report was incorrect in stating that the provisions of this bill are embraced in the bill S. 50. This bill provides against a change of venue in preliminary examinations, while the bill S. 50 does not. He favored the passage of the bill.
Mr. REEVE: The object of the committee was to prevent accumulative legislation. To enable the senator to have a fair chance, he was willing this one should be laid on the table.
Mr. KENT was also of opinion that the object in this bill sought was not embraced in the bill S. 50, which contemplates two actions. A preliminary examination is not a trial. He moved the bill be recommitted for further examination. There ought to be some legislation on this question.
Mr. VIEHE favored the motion to recommit. In many cases it is important a partial trial should be had on preliminary examination.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
The bill [S. 63--Mr. Davenport's] supplementary to the act to exempt property from sale in certain cases, with a committee report recommending indefinite postponement, was then taken up.
Mr. REEVE said there were some matters of importance embraced in this bill, and he moved its recommitment for further examination.
The motion was agreed to.
The bill [S.110--Mr. Cadwallader's] to amend the act declaring agreements to pay attorneys' fees on any evidence of indebtedness illegal, with a report from a majority of the Judiciary committee recommending its reference to the committee on Rights and Privileges of the Inhabitants of the State, and a minority report recommending the passage of the bill,. coming up--
Mr. KENT thought the time has come to abolish all such agreements to pay attorneys' fees.
Mr. MENZIES hoped the majority report would not be concurred in.
Mr. VIEHE--The judiciary committee being composed largely of lawyers, thought it best to recommend the, change of reference to the committee on rights and privileges.
Mr. REEVE--The Judiciary committee are more properly organized to settle questions of law. Here is a proposition nude, which the senator from Clinton [Mr. Kent] says is to repeal a law that enables the rich to rob the poor. The intelligence of the State should be left free to manage its domestic affairs in its own way. The people should have any kind of law they want. Otherwise it would be an unfortunate movement that ultimately would overturn the representative form of government. These little things, like eternal drippings, will wear away the rock.
Mr. WEIR, moved the recommitment of the bill to the judiciary committee.
Mr. WOOD favored the majority report. There should be no law preventing the citizen from making any contract he thinks fit.
Mr. BRISCOE was always opposed to the attorney fee clause. It is compulsion. It drives the borrower to make an agreement to pay attorney fees. He favored the minority report.
Mr. BURRELL opposed recommitment. The Senate is us well prepared now to vote upon tins question as it will be a week or two hence, and it should be settled now. The system that compels a man to pay usury in the shape of attorney's fees, has and will work hardships. It makes the creditor less able to pay the whole amount, and prudence and justice alike demand the adoption of the minority report
Mr. WOOLLEN hoped the report of the min-[ority] page: 54[View Page 54] [min]-ority would be adopted. When a man must have money he will go to almost any length to obtain it, and the law should step in to protect him in his extremity. Usury has always by all civilized nations been held to be wrong. The people demand the repeal of the onerous clause by which a debtor is always being invited to a suit that the creditor may be benefitted.
Mr HART'S constituents are demanding the repeal of these attorneys' fees, and he should do every thing to advance that end.
Mr. SHAFFER, desired a vote on the minority report.
Mr. STREIGHT: History will show that as often as the country is involved in financial difficulties the people resort to legislative aid to fix the value of money. There is no greater folly than to support the debtor class will be benefitted by restricting them as to what they shall pay for money. One of the chief benefits of government is to enforce honest contracts. Would you cut off the privilege of the borrower on the best terms he could? A measure so intimately connected with our best interests should be considered from a business standpoint. You can not make a provision that will compel the lender to put out his money on less terms than are satisfactory to him. Senators may say their constituencies are clamoring for the passage of this bill, but his constituencies are demanding that collections laws shall be made short, safe and sure, and are against hampering conditions on which money may be loaned. With our loose collection laws and the Government offering a bond at four percent., without taxes, who is going to loan money at six per cent.? When you fix it so any one controlling idle capital can better afford to buy government bonds than loan to a neighbor, the borrowing class will find there is no money to loan. If you pass no laws to drive capital out of the State, there may be found men who will loan at a rate that a needy borrower can get relief on reasonable terms
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN: If the lender has to pay attorney's fees on short loans he cannot get his money back. Is that just and fair?
Mr. COFFEY favored the minority report All such contracts should be declared null and void. Such stipulations now are indefinite and uncertain, and unjust to the borrower. For this reason he opposed the present law.
Mr. GARRIGUS: Shall we attempt to protect everybody against the consequences of their own contracts? The next measure proposed by advocates of this will probably be to do away with the valuation and appraisement law, which is a very benificent measure. That would naturally follow, and there is more reason in this than in the measure proposed by the minority report. The question should be: What will benefit the people? The people are almost all in the hands of creditors who hold iron-clad notes. Reduce interest to six per cent., strike out the right to pay attorney's fees, and where will the money go? You will make nugatory the declaration that we want more money. It only will go where it can command better rates. As a friend to the people of his native State, he would not aid in driving capitalists and capital away.
Mr. FOSTER opposed adoption of the minority report, and for fear it has not been properly investigated by the Judiciary Committee he favored concurrence in the majority report.
Mr. OLDS: The bill ought not to pass, for it takes away the right of parties to contract as they please for the loan of money. If there is any necessity for legislating in favor of parties who can not take care of themselves guardians should be appointed to make contracts to borrow money for such. It is saying the people shall make only such contracts for money as we shall dictate. The same right should prevail in the making of contracts for the use of money as for any other contract the citizen is capable of entering into. He favored the motion to recommit.
Mr. SHIRK: The Judiciary Committee is well qualified to judge of the merits of the bill, and without entering into a discussion thereof he favored the pending motion.
Mr. REEVE believed this bill embodies a fundamental principle which demands carefu1 consideration. It is a measure embodying class legislation, which is seldom recognized when it presents itself. Now is the time for senators to decide this question. An absurd idea is maintained by some that there can a conflict between capital and labor. Such conflict is precipitated by class legislation, and when that comes labor is starved to submission and capital is reduced to a position where it is comparatively useless.
Law is made for the preservation of public order. Every law that takes away the rights of the private citizen is tyranny.
Here the speaker was interrupted by the appearance at the bar of the Senate of a committee from the House of Representatives, commissioned to escort, the Senate to the hall of the House for the purposes of a joint convention to canvass the votes cast yesterday in each body separately for United States Senator. The Senate thereupon left the chamber. When senators had returned, Mr. Reeve gave way for the recess till 2 o' clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr REEVE, resuming the floor, continued his remarks at considerable length. This class of legislation he desired to meet at the threshold, and plead with Senators to take no step in that direction, directly or indirectly, for therein lies danger. We should pause even on this little bill, for it is an entering wedge to class legislation, and that is the thunderbolt that will rend to fragments any form of government
Mr. STREIGHT: If this bill were to pass, the debtor would be denied the right to renew his obligation, and in a majority of cases the creditor will demand judgment in accordance with the obligation as it now stands. This is the most important point connected with this bill
Mr KENT: The objections raised by the senator from Marshall [Mr Reeve] can be very easily answered. Is it true that the repeal of the law authorizing the collection of attorney's fees is class legislation? If so, what kind of legislation was it that passed the act permitting attorney's fees to be collected on promissory notes? The provision as it now stands is absolute--it does not depend upon the question as to whether or not suit is brought. The senator talks about class legislation. We have had it for the last ten or fifteen years, and it has been in favor of the rich man and against the poor. The men who have money to loan have it in their power to compel the poor borrower to comply with their terms. The first duty of the Government is to pass such laws as will restrain the strong and protect the weak. We should go back to the fundamental principle of Government itself, and insist that laws be passed for restraining the strong and for protecting the weak.
Mr. Winterbotham: In the session of 1875 the Legislature was flooded with petitions asking that the attorney's fee clause be stricken from such contracts, and in accordance with such petitions a law was passed with that intention, that was partly set aside by a decision page: 55[View Page 55] of the Supreme Court, and now we are asked to pass a law to meet the objection raided by the Court; He favored concurrence in the minority report.
The motion to recommit was rejected--yeas 15; nays 29.
A motion, [Mr. Olds], to lay the minority report on the table was rejected--yeas 19; nays 25; the minority report was rejected--yeas 21; nays 23--; the majority report, was concurred in, and so the bill was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. OLDS introduced a bill [S. 205] to provide against unjust charges by surgeons and physicians for services rendered, and against excessive charges by farmers. Surgeons not to charge to exceed $5 for an operation, phyisicians 50 cents for prescriptions--each five cents mile age. Farmers not to sell wheat for more than 50 cents per bushel; corn, 25 cents: oats, 15 cents, clover seed, $3; timothy seed, 75 cents; and charges for any amount in excess shall be illegal and void. [Laughter.]
The bill [S. 125--Mr. Foster's, by request] for the conviction of persons in possession of stolen property coming up, with a committee amendment, it was concurred in, and the bill ordered engrossed for the third reading.
The bill [S. 121--Mr. Trusler's] to repeal section 2 of the misdemeanor [provoke] act of March 22,1855, coming up, with a committee report recommending indefinite postponement--
The report was concurred in by--yeas 21, nays 18.
The bill [S. 100--Mr. Kent's] reducing the number of grand jurors to three freholders and voters, coming up in order, a committee recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed was concurred in.
The bill [S. 78--Mr. Shirk's] to amend section 344 of the general practice act, described in these reports of the 14th inst., was read the second time, with a committee report that it lie on the table.
On motion by Mr. SHIRK it was recommitted.
Mr. BURRELL introduced a bill [S. 206] to repeal section 6 and amend section 16 of an act concerning promissory notes, approved March 11.1861.
A message from the House of Representatives announcing the passage by that body of a joint resolution instructing senators and requesting Indiana's delegation in Congress to favor the granting of pensions to the veterans of the Mexican war, was made simultaneously with the appearance at the bar of the Senate of those Mexican war veterans now attending a convention in this city, in pursuance of am invitation extended by a resolution adopted this afternoon, offered by Mr. Menzies, by the terms of which the lieutenant governor announced a recess of ten minutes. After the time had expired he resumed the chair and spoke words of greeting to the veterans, extending to them, in behalf of the Senate, the privileges of the floor.
General Mahlon D, Manson, in behalf of his comrades, thanked the Senate for the compliment paid them, and referred to many victories won by the American soldiers on Mexican soil 33 years ago.
Major Jonathan W. Gordon, in response to persistent calls, also made a little speech, in Which he referred in tender terms to many who have passed over on the other side.
On motion by Mr. Menzies the message just received from the House of Representatives was taken up and the resolution passed unanimously.
And then the Senate adjourned.
