STATE LIENS.
Mr. Langdon's bill [S. 178] in relation priority of mortgage liens where the State of Indiana is judgment creditor, being read the second time, with a Committee report recommending that it be indefinitely postponed--
Mr. LANGDON said he introduced this bill by request, but believes there is merit in its provisions. It merely requires that the State shall take her place in line in the right of priority of liens. He could see no objection to the bill and hoped the report would not be concurred in.
Mr. TRAYLOR could see objections. It allows the Auditor to pass judicially upon questions which the Committee thought he ought not to. It would be a bad law, and if people have been doing business so loosely as the bill would seem to indicate, it would encourage that loose way of transacting business.
Mr. LANGDON thought the proper course would be, if the Committee were favorable to legislation in this direction, to have reported amendments to perfect the bill. These liens of the State are subsequent to prior liens, yet they stand there and incumber the land without any remedy. The State ought not to have any right other than a citizen should. The bill provides against any collusion. He opposed concurrence in the report of the Committee. The State could have a second lien in equity, he contended, in answer to a direct inquiry.
Mr. KRAMER--The State acquires a second lien, though not intended by the law. It may take place by collusion or mistake. The bill should be amended so as to make officers and bondsmen liable for losses occasioned by second liens, and and there ought to be some means provided by which second liens may be satisfied on the record.
Mr. BELL regarded this bill as too full of vicious provisions to be amended, and recommended the drafting of a new bill to remedy the evils complained of.
Mr. TRAYLOR questioned whether this bill would not relieve the Auditor from liability on his bond for mismanagement of the school fund.
Mr. BELL thought not.
Mr. LANGDON was willing the bill should lie on the table to enable more careful examination. All admit this bill refers to a wrong which ought to be remedied. It may be the terms of the bill are not sufficient, but he believed it contained a foundation upon which a proper enactment can be built. The State is losing thousands of dollars yearly because the statute of limitations is working against fines, etc., for the reason that officers are negligent in settling up the State's claims.
Mr. CHAPMAN favored the indefinite postponement of the bill. It ought to die here and now. Then if there is a need of any law providing for service upon any officer to answer for the State of Indiana, let such a measure be introduced. It is not necessary that this bill, which is thoroughly objectionable, should lie on the table. The files ought to be cleared as we go along.
On motion by Mr. LANGDON the bill and report were laid on the table.
