THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
NINETEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, February 24, 1881--10 a. m.Temperance petitions were presented by forty Senators, which were referred to the Committee without reading.
On motion Mr. SHAFFER, his local option temperance bill [S. 30], to regulate and license the sale of spirituous liquors, was taken up under the operations of the previous question, and read the second time.
Mr. YANCEY moved that the bill be ordered engrossed, and on that motion demanded the previous question, which, being seconded, under the operations the motion was rejected by--yeas, 32; nays, 15.
Pending the vote on the motion to order the bill engrossed--
Mr. BELL, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: While willing to vote for the previous question in order to cut off debate, I think this bill ought not to be engrossed as it is, but that it should be amended so as to make it more perfect. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. COFFEY, when his name was called, said: I desire to explain my vote. I believe this Legislature should enact some sort of temperance legislation, because the people of Indiana are demanding it at our hands. And I feel, as a Representative of a part of the people, that I would be recreant to the trust that has been imposed in me if I should vote to engross this bill in its present shape, because that means its death, and for that reason I vote "no."
Mr. FOSTER, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: If this bill is to be passed at all, I want its friends to have an opportunity to amend it. I vote "no."
Mr. HENRY, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: For the same reason I voted against the seconding of the demand for the previous question, I vote "no" on this. The bill is imperfect, as originally introduced, and should not engrossed in that form.
Mr. MENZIES, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: Believing that this is an attempt on the part of the enemies of this bill to strangle it to death, I vote "no."
Mr. SHAFFER, when his name was called, said: Just a word of explanation in regard to my vote. While I am in favor of this bill as it is amended because it is just what the friends of temperence want, and what the people want, but if this bill be engrossed and placed where it can not be amended, it will not meet the wants of the friends of the bill, consequently I shall vote no.
Mr. SPANN, in explanation of his vote, said: As it is understood that I am a friend of temperance, and if this bill as it was drawn by a Committee representing the temperance sentiment of Indiana, and as a Committee of the Senate has seen fit to report certain amendments, for the purpose of giving us necessary legislation on this question, I shall not vote to gag the work of this Committee, therefore, I vote "no."
Mr. VIEHE, when his name was called said: Believing all measures ought to have a fair chance before the Senate, and that has not been shown this bill yet, I vote "no."
The vote was announced as above; so the motion to engross the bill was rejected.
A report from a majority of the Committee on Temperance recommending some twenty-six amendments and two adverse minority reports were read.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the majority report be concurred in, and under the operations of the previous question the amendments were concurred in, except proposing to amend the last clause of Section 3.
The amendment proposing to strike out the words "number of," in the clause declaring that the poll list of the last general election shall be presumptive evidence of the number of voters therein was rejected by yeas, 6; nays, 37.
Pending the roll call on this vote--
Mr. BROWN, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: The reason I shall vote against that portion of the report of the Committee before the Senate is this: If the amendment is adopted, it will leave this bill open to the fraudulent conduct and practices which defeated the operations of the Baxter Bill. I can not see why it was the Committee struck out the language of the bill and put in this unless it was to bring along the mal-administration practiced under the Baxter Bill. The reason I shall vote against concurring in this report is this: If this amendment is adopted, it would allow the petitioners for license the opportunity of putting names of per- page: 223[View Page 223] sons upon their petitions who are not residents of the Ward or Precinct, and obtain licenses by that fraudulent conduct.
Mr. CHAPMAN when his name was called, said: I desire to explain my vote, without indicating whether I shall support a local option bill or not at this time; I desire, if a local option bill shall pass, that it shall be a genuine local option bill, and one that can be enforced. If the amendment proposed by the Committee shall be incorporated in the bill it would emasculate the bill, and as a law it would be worth nothing, for the reasons indicated by the Senator from Jackson (Mr. Brown). It opens the door for fraud--any names can be put on the petition whether such names were on the poll list or not. There should be evidence, not only of the number of voters in the Ward who voted at the election, but who the voters are, so than the truth of the application may be tested by the poll lists. Believing, if a law is going to be passed by the General Assembly, it should be an earnest and effective--one that can be made effective, and not one that can be avoided; and desiring that it shall carry wtth it all the means that will make it effective in the community, I vote "no."
Mr. MARVIN, when his name was called said: "My vote explains itself. I vote 'aye.'"
The vote was announced as above recorded, and so the amendment was rejected.
The bill was then ordered engrossed for the third reading by--yeas, 25; nays, 21, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Bischowsky, Briscoe, Bundy, Chapman, Comstock, Garrigus, Graham, Grubbs, Hostetter, Hutchinson, Kahlo, Langdon, Lockridge, Macartney, Majors, Marvin, Owen, Ristine, Sayre, Smith, Spann, Van Vorhis, Viehe, White and Yancey-25.
Nays--Messrs. Bell, Benz, Coffey, Compton, Davidson, Davis, Foster, Hefron Henry, Howard, Keiser, Kramer, Leeper, Menzies, Poindexter, Rahm, Shaffer, Traylor, Urmston, Voyles and Woollen-21.
So the bill was ordered engrossed.
On motion by Mr. BROWN--yeas, 38; nays, 5--the bill was recommitted with instructions to strike out the emergency clause and report the bill back to-morrow morning.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
THE CIVIL CODE.
Pursuant to order heretofore adopted, the Senlate proceeded to the consideration of the civi code bill [S. 271], concerning procedure in civil cases, the question being on the amendment pending at the adjournment last evening.
Mr. COMSTOCK--The purpose of the amendment is to obviate the necessity of dismissing the suit by settling the question as to whether the parties are in Court or not.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MENZIES offered an amendment embracing new matter to follow Section 74 of the code, page 71, prepared by the President of the State Bar Association, and by some inadvertance not incorporated in the bill. The intention is to make affidavits a part of the record for the purposes of appeal, etc. It would cut out a good deal of Judge-made law, etc.
Mr. LANGDON opposed the amendment, regarding it as proposing only a matter of convenience.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. LANGDON offered an amendment that the execution plaintiff may designate the paper in which notice shall be given.
Mr. HEFRON considered the present law sufficient on that subject. It leaves the discretion where it ought to be--with the Sheriff.
Mr. CHAPMAN thought the matter ought to rest with the parties to the suit.
Mr. FOSTER was of opinion the Sheriff was the proper party to say where the notices ought to be published.
Mr. GRAHAM also opposed the amendment. The effect of the amendment would be bad. The execution plaintiff maybe the friend of a paper that has but a small circulation, and it would be his prerogative to say that the notice shall be printed in such a paper which can not give the notice other papers of larger circulation could give.
Mr. VIEHE said the Sheriff was only responsible for his errors.
Mr. LANGDON was in favor of the people, and of the people having the largest liberty to contract as they please.
Mr. BUNDY regarded the Sheriff as being responsible for such a class of advertisements, and to the Sheriff this matter ought to be left. The amendment would lead to no good results, and he hoped it would not prevail.
Mr. KRAMER was decidedly in favor of the amendment. In his experience, in nine cases out of ten the execution plaintiff pays the advertising fee, and it is right and proper that that party should control the advertising of Sheriff sales.
Mr. BROWN opposed the amendment. It will incumber legal proceedings with a routine that will prove of no benefit.
Mr. SPANN understood the execution defendant usually pays the bill, and he is the proper party to control this matter. He moved to insert "defendant" in lieu of "plaintiff."
Mr. FOSTER opposed the amendment to the amendment. Many times the execution defendant knows nothing of the publication until after it is made, and sometimes long after.
Mr. TRAYLOR opposed both amendments. If it is made the duty of the Sheriff to ask another where the notice shall be published that officer may have to go twenty miles to get consent.
The amendment to the amendment was rejected by yeas 11, nays 30, and the amendment was also rejected by yeas 20, nays 21.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to amend Section 357 by requiring corporations to answer interogatories as natural persons through such officer the Court may direct.
Mr. LANGDON resisted the adoption of the amendment, the remedy under existing law being preferable.
Mr. COMSTOCK did not understand the correctness of the objections urged against his amendment.
The amendment was agreed to by yeas, 24; nays, 15.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, Section 35 was amended by adding a provision for service of process on persons of unsound mind.
On motion by Mr. SPANN, Section 374 wa amended where it refers to actions for recovery of personal property.
Mr. COMSTOCK offered a new Section to follow 802, authorizing the Court to require copies to be filed with complaints, answers or replies.
Mr. HEFRON regarded the amendment as proposing unnecessary labor and unnecessary expense. He saw in the report made of the argument here the other day it was stated that lawyers would resort to to the practice of abstracting papers from the files, and he believed such a person would resort to that practice as well when a copy is on file as when only the original is there. Such a rule would unnecessarily incumber the record,
Mr. TRAYLOR asserted that in time it will be necessary to increase the number of circuits in this State to fifty under the opeations of this amendment, if enacted into a law, and instead of Courts being held two weeks they will continue four weeks.
Mr. BELL submitted there could be no real hardship resulting from the adoption of this amendment. The Court could take all the circumstances into consideration before adopting such on order. In the Speaker's own city this amendment would work well. The Court would adopt the rule that no original paper should leave the files. He appealed to Senators who had page: 224[View Page 224] practiced in the Federal Court, where this rule prevails. It does not work more costs in the case, as has been suggsted. The copy goes with the original, for which no fee shall be charged.
Mr. HEFRON moved to amend the amendment, that where an opposing party or his attorney, desire a copy, on motion, the Court makes a rule requiring the other party to make a party.
Mr. BELL believed this amendment to the amendment would destroy the usefulness of the amendment. If left as it is, every party filing a claim would file a letter-press copy with it.
The amendment to the amendment was rejected, and the amendment was adopted by yeas, 26; nays, 14.
Mr. Kramer moved to reconsider the vote adopting Section 38, so:
It was not intended to place in power of parties to suits to advertise in any paper they saw fit. This amendment precluded any choice where there is but one paper printed in the County. In 1879 the Legislature passed an act making it legal to print any legal notice in a German or any other paper, provided the matter itself was printed in English.
The motion was rejected by yeas, 18; nays, 23.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend Section 569 so as to require all transcripts filed in the Supreme Court to be printed, the cost to be taxed to the losing party. He said: The printing of the transcript would do as much toward expediting business as any action we could take. It would boil down the record so that transcripts the Supreme Court would have to consider would not average one-half in bulk. This rule obtains in the Supreme Court of the United States and in most of the States. It would be a great advantage, not ony to attorneys, but to litigants.
Mr. BROWN regarded the adoption of that as the Iaw would be an absolute denial of appeals in a lalrge number of cases. In suits where a large amount is involve, and litigants are able to pay, they can have them printed now if they want to.
THe amendment was rejected.
On motion, the bill was ordered engrossed.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
THURSDAY, February 24, 1881--9 a. m.The following described bills were introduced and severally read the first time:
Mr. WALKER [H. R. 412]: Prescribing the duties and powers of Coroners. [At the general election the Coroner shall be elected to serve two years. He shall be a practicing physician, commissioned by the Governor, and execute a bond for $5,000. In his County ehall be a conservator of the peace, and arrest offenders of the law that come to his knowledge].
Br. Mr. WALKER [H. R. 413]: To amend Sections 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21 and 25 of an act for the government of the Indiana Hospital for the Insane, approved June 5, 1852.
By Mr. BUSKIRK [H. R. 414]: To legalize and render valid all records of the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts of the various Counties in the State of Indiana. [To legalize omissions, etc.]
By Mr. HUSTON [H. R. 415]: To provide and authorize the payment of the temporary debt of the State, authorizing a loan, levying a tax to appropriate money for the purpose, and regulating the issue and payment, and disposition and powers oonnected therewith. [The bond for $2,000, at not more than 4 per cent. interest, to be payable in five years, and not to extend more than ten years.]
By Mr. SMELZER [H. R. 416]: Defining and suppressing tramps. [Any person, (excepting females and blind persons,) tramping over the country, if found entering a dwelling house or inclosure against the will of the owner, etc. shall, upon conviction, be imprisoned for not more than three months nor less than one month.]
STOCK AT LARGE.
Mr. WALKER moved to take up the bill [H. R. 293] regulating the running of stock at large. He said since the recent flood there is a demand for such a law, that in Wabash County alone there has been washed away over 500 miles of fence, and, under the circumstances, considered this case an emergency.
The motion was agreed to, and the bill was read the second time, and, under a suspension of the Constitutional rule, considered as engrossed, and read the third time.
Mr. FANCHER moved to amend Section 1 by inserting of the word "Township" the word "or parts of Townships where the same is divided by a river or railroad, so that the stock may run at large on one side of the river or railroad."
The amendment was adopted.
On motion by Mr. THOMPSON, the bill was further amended by excepting milch cows.
Mr. CARTER moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment "to except milch cows" was adopted.
Mr. THOMPSON said there were many poor people, with sparse subsistence, who let their cows run out on the city or town commons, and he favored this much discrimination in favor of the poor. If we have a few cows running at large, they will push old fences down and compel farmers to keep their fences in good repair.
Mr. MITCHELL saw the time coming when the State of Indiana must have prohibitory stock laws.
Mr. CARR opposed the policy of cows running at large, and if a poor man has a cow let him pasture it on the inside of a fence, and not on the commons or public highways.
The SPEAKER [Mr. ---- in the Chair] thought the Legislature should enact laws in the interest of the people, especially the poor people, and not pass a measure compelling an old widow woman's cow from running at large. He considered the object of this amendment to be simply to enable poor people not able to own land, and hire pasture, to pasture their cows on the public highways.
The bill was rejected by yeas 40, nays 49.
FEMALE REFORMATORY.
Mr. EDWINS, from the Special Committee appointed to investigate the Female Reformatory, submitted the following report:
THE REPORT.
Mr. SPEAKER--Your Special Committee, raised to investigate the Female Prison and Reformatory and inquire into certain charges of uncommon cruelty to the imates thereof, as published in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Chicago Times and divers other papers and persons, beg leave to make the following report and submit the entire evidence given before the Committee to the House:
Your Committee, after the examination of over seventy witnesses under oath, find that such publications were made without any sufficient foundation in fact, and the charges therein contained are no sustained by the evidence.
The Committee have given the matter close attention, and have subjected the witnesses to a vigorous examination, and are of the opinion that the discipline of the Institution is maintained as far as practicable by kindness and appeals to the moral sense of the inmates, and resort is had to punishment only when other efforts have failed. The management do not attempt to conceal the fact that from time to time punishment is resorted to both upon the penal and reformatory sides of the Institution, and they avow that sometimes such punishment as been severe, but that the same has been rendered necessary, by the circumstances of the case, and has not been out of proportion to the offense for which it was inflicted; and in our opinion, this claim of the man-
page: 225[View Page 225]agers is fully sustained by the evidence, and that the modes of punishment resorted to are reformatory in their character and in the main, well calculated to restrain and check offenders from a repetition of the offense.
We are of the opinion that with the number of officers (which we consider insufficient) in the Institution and the means at their command, the management has been all that could reasonably hav been expected.
We can commend the Board of Managers of the Institution and the Superintendent for the patience, wisdom and vigor with which they have conducted its affairs, and we report that considering all the surroundings, much more has been accomplished in the way of reformation than could have been anticipated,
Your Committee are fully aware of the fact that Indiana is entitled to the proud position that she contains within her borders the only Female Prison in the world governed, guarded and financed by females, and when we see its condition from a sanitary and moral standpoint, its freedom from political convulsions, its surroundings so wholly in consonance with the female instinct and character of what is and should be womanly, we can not but express our admiration of the pioneers of such a movement. Punishment by the bath and water we find has been abolished.
We would earnestly recommend the abolishment of corporal punishment on the naked persons of young females, and recommend in its stead confinement in the lone cell.
And we are constrained to say that in our opinion the system which provides for the placing of young children in the same institution, and in contact with older girls, who have become hardened and degraded by vicious and polluting practices, if not by commission of actual crimes, is to be condemned.
And we accordingly report it as our earnest conviction that as soon as practicable the State should provide an entirely separate Home for all children under the age of fourteen years, now intended be provided for by the reformatory department of this Institution, so that, while its inmates, they shall not be contaminated by its associations, and ever after leaving it be the subject of reproachful remark on account thereof.
Respectfully submitted. EDWINS, Chairman, MARSHALL, J. P. CARR, HENRY C. MEREDITH. I agree with above report except as to mode of punishment. D. MCCLURE.
The report was concurred in.
THE CRIMINAL CODE.
Mr. RYAN called up the special order, being the consideration of the bill [H. R. 367] relating to criminal proceedings.
On motion by Mr. WALKER, it was ordered that during the consideration of the criminal code bill two hours each day shall be devoted to the regular business of the House, the hours to be designated each day by the Speaker.
On motion by Mr. FRAZER the bill was considered as engrossed, read the third time and amendments admitted by unanimous consent.
Mr. FANCHER moved to amend Section 5 by striking out the words "is liable to" in the clause reciting that any person leaving the State to fight a duel is liable to be punished in the County of his residence, etc., and insert in lieu the word "may." He said the phrase "is liable to" were not good words in that place. He thought "may" would convey a better meaning.
The amendment was adopted.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The following described bills were introduced and read the first time:
By Mr. CABBAGE [H. R. 417]: To encorage the destruction of owls and hawks and other mischievous birds that prey on poultry.
Mr. CABBAGE said the destruction of such animals would make a saving to the State of a great deal of money. He called the attention of the House to the fact that along rivers and creeks where these destructive animals are increasing it is almost impossible to protect these domestic animals.
By Mr. GARDNER [H. R. 418]: To amend Section 54 of an act to repeal all general laws now in force for the incorporation of cities, etc. [Regulating the place where intoxicating liquors are sold, giving Common Council jurisdiction two miles beyond the city limits.]
By Mr. GARDNER [H. R. 419]: To prohibit the taking or receiving within the State applications for life insurance policies on the Tontine plan, and prescribing penalties therefor.
LOCAL OPTION.
Mr. GILMAN offered a resolution that that Committee on Temperance be instructed to report a bill to this House for its consideration, granting local option in the sale of intoxicating liquors.
THE STATE'S PRISONS.
Mr. WILSON of Montgomery, from the Committee on Prisons, reported to the House the oondition, management, etc.. of the Prisons North and S
The report was concurred in.
THE CRIMINAL CODE.
On motion by Mr. NEFF, the House proceeded to the consideration of the bill [H. R. 367] relating to criminal proceedings.
Mr. CARTER moved to amend Section 71 of the bill by striking out all after the word "and" [in the clause "and whenever any person has been convicted before the Mayor, Police Judge or Judge, etc.,"] and inserting the following: "All ordinances of any city which seek to punish an act already punishable, under a statute law fully covering the same, shall be void as in excess of the power conferred upon cities." He said the objectionable feature of that section was the confliction of city and State laws. He could see no reason why a city should have a law to punish assault and battery when the State has the same law.
Mr. NEFF said that matter was fully provided for in another section.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. WALZ moved to strike out the word "twelve" in Section 79 [referring to the number of Grand Jurymen], and insert the word "six."
Mr. RYAN hoped the amendment would not prevail. He thought a good Jury of twelve men safer than one of six; besides twelve men could dispose of the business much more rapidly.
Mr. MITCHELL wanted the amendment to pass upon the ground that it would dispatch business.
Mr. TETER said it appeared to him the Grand Jury ought to be a legal sieve, and twelve men, accordingr to his idea, constituted a better sieve than a smaller number, therefore he opposed this amendment.
Mr. WALZ thought the people were very well satisfied with the number six, as there has been no bill introduced to abolish the number and substitute twelve therefor.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. EDWINS moved to strike out all of Section 79. He favored disposing of the entire Grand Jury system. In different Counties of the State men are driven from their homes, some perhaps with not ten dollars in their pockets, and are kept away for weeks, and do not receive a dollar from the State.
Mr. NEFF--I hope the amendment will not be adopted. The Constitution of the State says that page: 226[View Page 226] the Grand Jury system of the State may be abolished, but I hope the gentlemen of this House will stand by it.
Mr. BUSKIRK was opposed to the Grand Jury system, but there was a rule of law that when a thing is changed you have to show a better way. If the gentlemen are prepared to say they have a better system than the Grand Jury system, he would vote for the amendment. He did not believe in varying from an old, established institution unless a better one could be substituted.
On motion by Mr. THOMPSON, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. HINTON made an ineffectual effort to amend Section 79, to make the number of Grand Jurymen nine instead of twelve.
Mr. KAIN moved to amend Section 80 [in regard to exemptions from serving on a Grand Jury] by inserting after the word "services" in line 5 these words: "Or ministers of the Gospel."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. MARSHALL moved to amend the same section by inserting the words "or physicians."
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WALKER moved to amend Section 80 by etriking out the words "ten dollars" [amount of penalty when failing to appear upon summons] and inserting in lieu thereof the words "five dollars."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. SKINNER moved to amend Section 89 (giving the causes for which a man may be challenged to serve on a Grand Jury) by adding the words "That he is in the habit of becoming intoxicated."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. STEWART offered an amendment allowing the Prosecuting Attorney to be present at the sittings of the Grand Jury. As the law is now, the Prosecutor can not be present. He thought it bad that the Prosecutor has to leave whenever the Jurymen want to express an opinion. He being a sworn officer, ought to be present.
Mr. WALZ moved to strike out the word "nine" (the number that must concur in making a verdict) in Section 104 and insert the word "twelve" in lieu.
Mr. WALZ said there was an important question before the House yesterday, in regard to the number required to make a verdict. He thought it should require the unanimous vote of the Grand Jury to make a verdict; that if the principle held good in one case it would in another.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. THOMPSON moved to amend Section 108 [referring to the dismissal of information except order of the Court] by adding the following words: "And the number of indictments shall not because for non prossing said indictments."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. CARTER moved to amend Section 116 [upon the subject of sssuing warrants] by striking out the lines five, six and seven of said section and insert these words: "When a warrant is issued the Clerk must at the same time issue a summons for the witness."
Mr. CAUTHORNE moved to amend the amendment by inserting after the word "witness" in line 7, the following; "But the officer shall not serve the summons on the witness until the warrant has been executed."
The amendment to the amendment and the amendment were adopted.
Mr. WALKER moved to amend Section 148--concerning recognizances and the binding of their real estate--by inserting after the word "recognizer," in line 9, the following words: "In the County where the recognizance is entered into."
Mr. KENNER moved to amend the amendment as follows: Strike out of Section 148 the following in line 8: "Such recognizance shall bind the real estate of all the recognizers from the time of their signing or entering the same."
Mr. KENNER said it is well known when a man goes on a bond every foot of his real estate is incumbered. Sometimes this recognizance last for a long time. He would hesitate to go on a man's bond on that account, and thought it ought to be stricken out.
Mr. BUSKIRK said he was half way in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Huntington (Mr. Kenner), but thought it too radical; if it should be adopted there would be no provision in the bill for the attaching of the lien prior to the commencement of the action on the recognizance, or, perhaps, until judgment is taken. The lien ought to attach sooner than this, not later than the judgment of foreclosure. In its present shape he was opposed to this amendment, but was in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Martin (Mr. Walker).
Mr. WALKER said the object of his was to effect real estate in Counties, in which recognizances are taken only.
Mr. RYAN was of opinion that criminals have chance enough now to escape penalties and punishment without giving them this advantage. If this amendment passed, recognizances would not be worth the paper they are written on. He said this section did not impose any hardship except upon that class of criminals for which it was intended, therefore he favored its adoption.
Mr. BERRYMAN--This amendment ought not to prevail. Parties who are purchasing real estate and taking mortgages upon real estate could not, if a law of this kind existed, take a mortgage or make a transfer of property. A provision of that kind is unfair. If that amendment prevails, it would become dangerous for a man to buy property or accept a mortgage upon property.
Mr. BENHAM thought it unwise to enact a law that as soon as a man signs a bond it should be binding on the real estate for the full amount of the bond. A short time after going bond for some one you might want to sell some of your real estate and could not because of the incumbrance upon it, and he hoped the amendment will not prevail.
The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The amendment was agreed to.
The House adjourned till to-morrow.
