AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. SHAFFER, the joint resolution [H. R. 1] looking to the reconstruction of the Wabash and Erie Canal by the General Government, was taken up and read the third time.
Mr. SHAFFER said the money has already been expended, for the survey, and a report has been made to Congrass. The work is of great importance as tending to cheapen transportation, and wil1 greatly benefit the portion of the State through which the canal passes.
Thejoint rsolution passed by yeas, 34; nays, 0.
Mr. MENZIES regarded the reasons given for this amendment as imaginary.
Mr. SPANN objected to the amendment, because it goes to all specifications in this section. Hardships may arise under it, should it become a law.
Mr. WILSON moved to strike from the amendment the words "which shall be specifically set forth," so the applicant can state the conclusions, and not be required to state the facts.
This motion was agreed to upon a division--ayes 21; nays, 22.
Mr. CHAPMAN had little respect for changes of venue, believing they were seldom asked for to advance the causes of justice. He saw no particular safeguard in the amendment. If it tended to defeat changes ov venue he would favor it, provided no wrong would grow out of it.
THE CIVIL CODE
The Senate resumed the pending order.
Mr. BELL did not think this amendment would affect Railroad Companies materially one way or the other, or if it did that should not influence votes one way or the other. There ought to be changes of venue granted in places where odium attaches or prejudices exist against the defendant. Laws should be enacted not to cover exceptionable cases, but such as will apply the best in the greatest number of cases.
The amendment was agreed to by--yeas, 24; nays, 21.
Mr. HENRY moved to amend by adding that in any application for change of venue from the County, the applicant shall also state in his affidavit that he has a good and meritorious cause of action or defense which shall be specifically set forth therin.
Mr. BELL opposed this amendment.
Mr. HENRY replied to objections.
Mr. BROWN referred to the fact that there was no such thing as change of venue at common law, but practice in American Courts proceed upon the assumption that we are in advance of our ancestors. If the change of venue is right, it is wrong to throw impediments in its way.
The amendment as amended was rejected by yeas, 13; nays, 35.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend so that the applicant shall state in his affidavit the facts out of which such odium and local prejudice has arisen. page: 190[View Page 190] The affidavit should state something more than a mental conclusion, or something intangible, and he insisted that the statement should embrace some facts.
Mr. VIEHE opposed the amendment because it is impracticable. In nine cases out of ten where there is a prejudice existing against a man, the man himself cannot tell why.
Mr. CHAPMAN, out of deference to the solicitude manifested on the other side of the House, withdrew his amendment.
Mr. WILSON referred to the many inaccuracies in the printed pamphlet purporting to show the amendments proposed by the Revision Committee, declaring it to be so full of errrors that the Printer ought to bear the expense of reprinting the book correctly.
Mr. FOSTER looked upon this as one of the most important matters to come before the Senate, and no Senator can act wisely on the printed documents before us. He moved to postpone the further consideration of the civil code till Mon- day, at 2 o'clock p. m., so that 150 copies of the amendments as proposed by the Revision Committee can be printed.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to limit the period within which actions may be brought on bills of exchange, promissory notes, mortgages and other contracts in writing, for the payment of money hereafter executed, to ten years. He insisted men ought not to have such things hanging over them so long.
Mr. COMSTOCK opposed the amendment. The matter was considered carefully by the Board of Revision, and such an amendmet would involve the reconstruction of other Sections of the code, and thus cause delay.
Mr. CHAPMAN did not propose to take this work as it comes from the Board of Revision or the Revision Committee. The General Assembly should give careful and deliberate consideration to every amendment proposed. Indeed we should consider all of the Code, for it passes theoretically, at least under our eyes and our judgment; whether any amendment works delay is not to be consider for a moment. The only question should be: Is the amendment judicious? If so, it should be made; if injudicious, it should not be made.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. KRAMER saw no reason for changing the time in which men are bound on official bonds. He moved to amend by striking out "five" and inserting "three" in lieu. We have got along well enough under the law making it three years. In many Counties it is a hard matter for officials to get bondsmen, and if the term of liability is extended to five years it will make it still harder.
Mr. VIEHE gave reasons why the time should be extended to five years-where an officer is his own successor, he will declare the defalcation occurred during his first time, and so escape.
Mr. WILSON moved ineffectually as an amendment to the amendmet to extend the time to ten years.
The amendment was also rejected.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES, Section 784 was amended by providing that damages for injury resulting in death can not exceed $10,000 and must inure to the exclusive benefit of the widow and children, if any, or next of kin.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
