THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE
THURSDAY, March 24, 1881--10 a. m.Mr. VOYLES, from the Joint Committee thereon, returned the bills [S. 84--see page 252 of these Reports; and H. R. 122--see page 119] relating to town elections--less than 3,000 population shall have but one voting precinct--with a favorable recommendation of the House bill after amendment.
The report was concurred in.
Subsequently, on motion of Mr. VOYLES, the bill [H. R. 122] was read the second and third times (under a suspension of the rules) and passed the Senate.
SURVEY OF SWAMP LANDS.
On motion by Mr. GARRIGUS, the bill [S. 300] appropriating $5,000 for the survey of wet lands by an engineer, to be appointed by the Governor, was read the second time the title only, the third time by sections (under a supension of the constitutional rule on Mr. BRISCOE'S motion), and passed the Senate by yeas, 31; nays.4.
A LEGALIZING ACT.
On motion, by Mr. HART, his bill [S. 274] to legalize the incorporation of a Baptist Association in Gibson County was read the second and third times and passed the Senate under a suspension of the constitutional restriction.
BANK OF COMMERCE.
Mr. Chapman's bill [S. 164--see page 28, vol. 20, of these Reports] to amend the act incorporating the Indianapolis Insurance Company (now the Bank of Commerce), making stockholders liable for three times the amount of stock, was read the third time and passed--yeas, 33; nays 3.
LANDS IN TOWNS AND CITIES.
Mr. Graham's bill [S. 81] to define the manner in which lands in town and city limits may be taxed for municipal purposes being read the third time--
Mr. GRAHAM explained the provisions of the bill: That parcels of land greater than five acres inside the corporate limits of cities and towns, used for agricultural purposes, may not be taxed for other than Township purposes. Its purpose is to stop abuses where large bodies of lands within corporate limits, used entirely for agricultural purposes, are taxed by municipalities.
Mr. HEFRON opposed the passage of the bill.
It was passed over informally, with the consent of the author.
PURDUE UNIVERSITY FUND.
Mr. Langdon's bill [S. 177. See page 28, vol xx], providing for re-investment of Purdue University funds in 5 per cent. twenty-year State bonds, being read the third time--
Mr. LANGDON explained: Its only purpose is to authorize the Trustees to pay the money of the University now in hand--$15,000--in the State Treasury; the State officers to issue to the Trustees a non-negotiable bond for $340,000, drawing 5 per cent. interest, taking up the bonds now held by that Institution for $125,000 and for $200,000, which have only some two year longer to run.
The bill passed by yeas, 38; nays, 1.
MEROM CHRISTIAN COLLEGE.
The bill [H. R. 65] to legalize the incorporation of the Union Christian College of Merom, heretofore read the third time, was passed--yeas, 34; nays, 0.
HOUSE BILLS READ THE SECOND TIME.
The bill [H. R. 119] requiring County Commissioners to furnish homes to homeless children, was read the second time.
The bill [H. R. 196] to abolish the office of Township and County Assessors, was read the second time with a Committee report recommending its indefinite postponement.
On motion by Mr. FOSTER this Committee report was concurred in.
POLICE JUDGE FOR INDIANAPOLIS.
The bill [H. R. 34] to provide for the election of a Police Judge in cities of 60,000 inhabitants and page: 77[View Page 77] over, being read the second time, with a Committee report recommending amendments--
Mr. VAN VORHIS said if the fees of a Police Judge were turned to the Police Judge, the Mayor of Indianapolis would receive a salary of $1,800. The Committee reported favorable to limiting the salary to $2,000.
Mr. FOSTER did not like to array himself against the Senators from this County, if they are both in favor of this bill, but the people of Indianapolis, in his judgment, do not desire the passage of this bill.
Mr. VAN VORHIS--There is not a member of the Board of Aldermen or Common Council of the city, either Democrat or Republican, but recognizes the necessity for this bill, and advocates its passage. A few oppose it, but as a general rule the people favor it.
Mr. FOSTER had seen a list in the hands of a gentleman of the highest integrity, showing that out of 120, 108 of the legal profession in this city have signed a remonstrance against the passage of this bill. That fact alone should go a great way in influencing Senators in voting upon the bill. It is simply a bill to create a new office for another party man to step into at the expense of the people. If he did not honestly believe the people of Indianapolis were opposed to this bill he would not take a stand against it. The merchants of this city also have largely signed a petition against this bill.
Mr. VAN VORHIS said he had a petition signed by a large number of business men in favor of this bill. The Committee to which this bill was referred had before it both petitions and remonstrances, and on the petition will be found a number of names which were signed to the remonstrance under a misapprehension. A good many lawyers signed the remonstrance also under a misapprehension--the misapprehension being that there would be a considerable increase in expenses because of the creation of this office. The bill provides that the Police Judge shall get nothing but fees, and if a salary is given it shall not exceed $1,800, and that is about what the fees would be It would be to the interest of the tax-payer to fix the salary as the pay of the Police Judge, for the fees have amounted to more than $2,500 per annum for the two years past. It is utterly impossible, in a city so large as this, for the Mayor to perform the duties of Police Judge, and at the same time perform the executive duties of a Mayor.
Pending the consideration of this bill came a recess until 2 o'clock p. m. .
AFTERNOON SESSION.
OFFICERS AND OFFICES.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [S. 325] concerning offices and officers, beginning at Section 329.
Mr. HEFRON moved to reduce the bond of County Clerks from $25,000 to $10,000. The former is an unnecesary amount, and imposes too great a burden on that office.
Mr. BUNDY opposed the motion. A bond of $10,000 is totally insufficient in a large County.
Mr. FOSTER proposed as a substitute $15,000; $25,000 is a bond larger than ought to be required.
Mr. COMSCOCK knew of many Counties where the sum of $25,000 is frequently in possession of the Clerk. The section should stand as it is.
Mr. BELL thought the bond ought to be large. New railroads are being built, lands condemned, and money placed in that officer's hands in various ways.
The amendment was rejected.
The substitute was also rejected.
Mr. CHAPMAN made an ineffectual motion to reduce the bond of Prosecuting Attorneys from "five" to $2,000.
On motion by Mr. MARVIN, Section 378 was amended--yeas, 20; nays, 14--by reducing the rate of interest tobe charged on moneys loaned by the Treasurer from 7 to 6 per cent.
Mr. BROWN moved to strike out the section abolishing Coroner's Juries. Nineteen-twentieths of inquests held in Indiana are not within law Still, the safety of the citizen suspected of a crime ought not to be taken away and his right to liberty left in the hands of but one man rather than a Jury of his peers.
The motion was rejected--yeas, 17; nays, 19.
Mr. GRAHAM moved to amend so that no Coroner's quest shall be held in any case where a person shall die in the presence of his family
Mr. COMSTOCK thought that should be left to the sense of propriety of the Coroner.
Mr. BROWN thought it not unfrequently the case that relatives are the cause of the death.
Mr. GRAHAM'S intention was to cut off abuses of Coroners in holding many unnecessary and useless inquests. He would not have an inquest held without consent of the family.
Mr. BROWN said almost every case of poisoning is first discovered by virtue of the Coroner's inquest; and if the amendment is passed, and relatives are the cause of death, the guilty party can never be found.
Mr. BELL knew Coroners often abuse their powers. He moved to refer the Section 371 and pending amendment to a Specal Committee of three.
The motion was agreed to.
Subsequently Mr. BELL, from a majority of the Special Committee, returned a substitute for Section 371--a minority recommending that the section stand as it is:--being the present law.
Mr. MENZIES did not join in the report, believing it a dangerous thing to remove the power from the Coroner to investigate what took place in the household concerning a death of a member of the family, though there are abuses under the present law.
The minority report was adopted by yeas, 28; nays, 11.
Mr. BELL moved to change the word "removal" in Section 408 to "suspended." He thought it wrong to remove an officer when a suit is commenced against him.
Mr. BROWN insisted the commencement of a suit does not fix the delinquency--the officer is not delinquent until after the charges have been made and the delinquency ascertained. After delinquency is found and suit commenced on the bond, of course the Commissioners should have the right to remove the delinquent.
The motion to amend was rejected.
Mr. MACARTNEY moved to strike out of Section 400, the clause prohibiting erasures and pencil entries in the County Treasurer's book.
On motion by Mr. WOOD, a substitute for the amendment was adopted, adding a fine of $10 for violation of this provision.
Mr. MENZIES opposed the plan of putting misdemeanors and crimes in a statute of this kind; he therefore moved to reject the substitute and amendments.
This motion was rejected.
On motion by Mr. HENRY, the penalty was increased from "$10," to "$50.'
Mr. BROWN believed this so absolutely ridiculous, and so full of nonsense, that any Prosecutor drawing up an indictment under it, would be drummed out of town.
The substitute as amended, was rejected.
Mr. WOOD moved to amend Section 408 by affixing a penalty of $50 for willful violation of any provision of this act. Why make a requirement and not affix a penalty for violation? There are over 100 requirements madeof the County Treasurer in this act, and there is no penalty attached whatever, in case the Treasurer refuses to comply with them. Suppose he will not comply with half of the requirement of the statute, what are you going to do abou it? There is no penalty in the bill save one exception. You enact a law for the government of County Treasurers and say to page: 78[View Page 78] him, you shall not be troubled if you disregard it. A law without a penalty is a useless thing. It is child's play to enact any law without some kind of a penalty. Let us compel respect for the law by a penalty or let us enact none.
Mr. URMSTON opposed such an amendment to this section.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. VAN VORHIS offered an amendment requiring County offices to be opened at 7:30 o'clock a. m.
Mr. BUNDY moved to amend by fixing the hour at 8.
Mr. OWEN favored a amendment that will compel these men who get anywhere from $2,000 to $15,000 a year to get up in time to wait on those who pay them these salaries.
The amendent was agreed to.
The amendment as amended was adopted.
Mr. VAN VORHIS offered an amendment looking to reduce the number of books in the Recorder's office.
Mr. BELL said the Miscellaneous Record is already too large; it required such a voluminous index.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. RISTINE moved to reduce the bond of the Recorder from $10,000 to $5,000, inasmuch as the present law requires but a $2,000 bond.
Mr. BUNDY remembered a Recorder recorded a mortgage given for $5,000 as a $500, by which there was a loss to the mortgagee, who took a second-mortgage, of several hundred dollars. Ten thousand dollars is not too large a bond to require of this officer.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. HEFRON of Daviess co. offered an amendment to the section requiring the index to be in the name of the original owner of the land where the deed is made by a Trustee or other official.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TRAYLOR moved an amendment, requiring Recorder's to keep a book to be called "The Mechanic's Lien Book," in which all mechanics and material men's liens shall be recorded. The Supreme Court has decided that notice of a mechanic's lien recorded in a "Miscellaneous Record Book" is no notice.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COMSTOCK offered an amendment, which was rejected, prohibiting Recorders from using books containing printed forms.
Pending the above proceeding--
On motion by Mr. Brown, the bill [H. R. 36] to protect sheep husbandry, requiring Trustee to register and number all dogs, was read the first time and referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the bill [H. R. 117] concerning witnesses subpenaed on the part of the State outside of the County in criminal cases, was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Fees and Salaries.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
DEFERRED, MARCH 22.
Mr. MARVIN offered a resolution that the special session adjourn sine die, Monday, April 4, at noon.
It was laid on the table--yeas, 26; nays, 14.
OMITTED, MARCH 23.
Mr. COMSTOCK offered a concurrent resolution for the appointment of a Joint Committee of twelve to recommend bills deserving priority of consideration.
Mr. BRISCOE offered a substitute limiting speeches to five minutes, and that the Senate consider only bills reported from the Revision Committee.
The whole subject was laid on the table.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, March 24, 1881--9 a. m.THE CIVIL CODE.
Mr. STEWART offered a resolution that when the bill [S. 271] concerning civil proceedings is reached, all the amendments to the same shall be presented, read and referred to a Special Committee of Five to consider and arrange in topical and logical order, and when examined the bill shall be put upon its passage. He said: It is well known that we have on the files a large number of bills. We want to pass this civil code bill. This resolution will require members to offer their amendments that they may be referred to the Committee, who will arrange the bill in a proper manner before it passes the House. I make this motion simply to facilitate business.
The resolution was adopted.
The SPEAKER made the Committee to consist of Messrs, Stewart, Ryan, Cauthorne, Neff and Carter.
Subsequently, in pursuance of this order, amendments to the bill [H. R. 271] concerning civil proceedings were offered and referred to this Committee of Five.
Subsequently Mr, BUSKIRK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill [S. 271] concerning civil proceedings, was referred to a Committee. He said: The House ought to have the control of the bill, and treat it as they think proper. I am not willing, however able the gentlemen may be, to say that five men shall constitute the Legislature of the State of Indiana upon this the most important measure yet before the House--one that affects our personal and property rights. I would a great deal rather take it from the Special Committee and give it to the Revision Committee, as it is composed of three men who have given the subject their special attention.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to, and the motion to refer rejected.
On motion by Mr. RYAN, it was ordered that when the bill is read the third time it be subject to amendments by sections as the bill is read.
On motion by Mr. BUSKIRK, it was ordered that the bill [S. 271] concerning civil proceedings be made a special order every afternoon until completed, commencing this afternoon.
PURDUE UNIVERSITY FUND.
Mr. HUSTON moved to amend the bill [H. R. 415] authorizing the payment of the temporary loan debt of the State by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting new matter to the effect that the Trustees of Purdue University be authorized to surrender to the Treasury all bonds of the State now held by them, and that the Governor, Treasurer, and Auditor be authorized to execute to said Trustees a new non-negotiable 5 per cent. twenty-year bond.
The amendment was adopted, and the bill was ordered engrossed.
CASS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT.
The Committee on Organization of Courts reported on the bill [H. R. 326] to abolish the Cass County Superior Court, recommending that the bill lie on the table.
The report was concurred in.
SESSION HOUR.
Mr. JOHNSON offered a resolution that hereafter the House hold its session from 8 a. m. to 12 m. and from 2 p.m. till 6 p. m., which lays over until to-morrow under the rules.
LEGALIZING BILLS PASSED.
Mr. Murray's bill [H. R. 273] to legalize the acts of the Trustees and officers of the town of Ridgeville, was read the third time and passed.
On motion by Mr. MEREDITH, Senator Comstock's bill [S. 192] to legalize the proceedings of page: 79[View Page 79] School Trustees of Milton, Wayne County was read the third time and passed--yeas, 69; nays, 0.
Mr. Sumner's bill [H. R. 283] to legalize the incorporation of the town of Argos, Marshall County, Ind., acts the Board of Trustees, and other officers, etc., was read the third time and passed--yeas, 73; nays, 1.
POOR FARM SUPERINTENDENT.
Mr. Compton's bill [H. R. 292] to amend Section 31 of an act for the relief of the poor, approved June 9, 1852, was read the third time.
Mr. COMPTON said there is no change in the old law except that Superintendents of the Poor Farm are required to give a bond of $1,000. It also give the County Commissioners discretionary power to raise the bond from $1,000 to $5,000.
The bill passed--yeas, 69; nays, 0.
COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS.
Mr. Jackson's bill [H. R. 307] to regulate the manufacture and sale of commercial fertilizers, and to prevent the manufacture and sale of adulterated fertilizers, was read the third time.
Mr. FURNAS, by unanimous consent, offered an amendment, which was adopted, by inserting after the word "analysis," Section 1, the following words: "Made by the chemist of a University.
The amendment was considered engrossed.
On motion of Mr. MEREDITH, the bill was recommitted to a Special Committee of five, with instructions to amend, as they may see fit.
The Committee was made to consist of Messrs. Meredith, Furnas, O'Neal, Davis and Jackson.
INDEBTEDNESS OF COUNTIES.
Mr. Cotton's bill [H. R. 154] to amend Section 4 of an act regulating the indebtedness of Counties having a voting population of over 20,000 inhabitants, approved March 21, 1879, was read the third time.
Mr. COTTON--This bill applies to Counties of 20,000 voting population, only, therefore, it applies to Marion County only. There is no good reason why a County of 20,000 voters should be limited in their right to assess taxes any more than a County of a less number of voters, and the law does not prohibit them from levying taxes at their discretion. This bill limits the Commissioners to forty-five cents on the $100. The last assessment of real estate has reduced the taxables in this County from $95,000,000 to $65,000,000, therefore, the increase asked for in this bill would not increase the taxes individually or collectively if the Commissioners should levy to the full extent of the limit, but would enable the Commissioners to run the affairs of the County without issuing more bonds.
The bill passed--yeas, 60; nays, 11.
DEER PROTECTION.
Mr. Skinner's bill [H. R. 167] to amend Section 1 of an act for the protection of wild game, fixing the time, etc., prescribing the penalties, was read the third time.
Mr. SKINNER--This is a bill that explains itself. The only change it makes in the old law is, it makes it a crime to kill deer at any season of the year. In the Northern part of the State there is but one thing that will prevent the destruction of this animal, and that is the passage of a law of this kind. The only excuse hunters themselves give for killing deer, is that the law is such that if they do not kill them, some one else will. It is estimated that there are only about fifty or sixty deer in the region of the Kankakee River. I hope the members of this House will pass the bill.
Mr. WESTFALL--Does this law affect domestic animals as well as others? There is a man in our County who has a deer fawn. Does this bill prevent him from killing his deer?
Mr. SKINNER--This bill only applies to wild game.
The bill passed--yeas, 65; nays, 9.
ARTICLES ADRIFT--SALVAGE.
Mr. Gibson's bill [H. R. 207] concerning articles adrift or wrecked being read the third time--
Mr. GIBSON said it provides for the taking up and disposition of property found adrift. Under the present law there is no provision how to dispose of such property. This bill provides where articles are taken up they are to be kept a certain length of time, and if not claimed, they are disposed of and the proceeds placed in the County Treasury, and at the end of one year the money is appropriated to the common school fund.
The bill passed--yeas, 48; nays, 4.
MECHANICS' LIENS.
Mr. Kerr's bill [H. R. 220] concerning the liens of mechanics and material men was read the third time.
Mr. Kerr said this bill was prepared by the Codification Committee. It revises, simplifies and re-arranges the old law upon the subject of mechanics' liens. There are some few changes, but all of them are in the interest of mechanics and material men, and look to the enlargement and more perfect maintenance of their rights.
Mr. GILLAM--This bill appears to me to be a very good one in justice to working men. Under the old law, laboring men had not enough rights. Under the provisions of this bill, the property or thing upon which the work is done, is held for the mechanics pay.
The bill passed--yeas, 80; nays, 0.
SALE OF FORFEITED LANDS.
Mr. LINDLEY'S bill [H. R. 222] to provide for the prosecution of sale of lands forfeited to the State was read the third time.
Mr. LINDLAY said this bill proposes the sale of a number of tracts of land, forfeited to the State, upon which there is no tax paid at the present time.
The bill passed--yeas, 64; nays, 11.
Mr. LINSDAY'S bill [H. R 238] to provide for the sale of lands and lots purchased on behalf of the State, at judicial and other sales, was read the third time.
Mr. LINSDAY said this bill authorizes the State officers to sell these lands for the benefit of the State, in their present condition, thus the State will be reimbursed as far as possinle for the outlay for such purchases.
The bill passed--yeas, 72; nays, 0.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Judiciary Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 303] in relation to homesteads, recommending its passage with amendments.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
FENCING RAILROADS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be Mr. Faucher's bill [H. R. 148] relating to the construction of fences, gates, farm crossings, cattle-guards, etc. The bill was read the third time.
Mr. FANCHER--The provisions of this bill are generally known. Nearly every State has a similar statute. The bill requires Railroad Companies to fence their right-of-way within six months after the taking effect of this act, or six month after the construction of a new road or part of a road. The fence is required to be built so it will turn all stock, except hogs. In another section it provides that on failure of the Company to construct such fence, any party sustaining damages shall recover, in additio to the damages, $25. In my judgment that is the only way to reach the Railroad Companies. It is my experience that it is one of the most difficult things to collect a claim against a Railroad Company, especially if page: 80[View Page 80] the judgment is for stock killed. I deem it a good bill and think it ought to pass.
Mr. RYAN--From my own personal knowledge of the operations of railroads, I think this measure ought to pass. Railroads running through the County where I live kill people's stock, and there has been no remedy, as the road changed hands so often that it was hard to tell who the road belonged to. This bill merely provides that a fence shall be built to keep stock off the line of the railroad. The same rule should be applied to railroads as to individuals--that is, not to inflict injury to the property of others; and this bill will accomplish this result.
Mr. COTTON favored the passage of the bill.
Mr. COLE said: "The bill is a good one. It obviates the prevailing difficulty of collecting damages for stock killed upon railroad lines. The present law is not adequate, because a person does not succeed in collecting the full value of the stock killed. This bill provides against relief of Railroad Companies changing ownership.
Mr. GIBSON was opposed to the bill because it would be a consumption of the timber of the country. He considered it a very serious objection.
Mr. MOODY--I hope the bill will pass, though it is not such a bill as I desired and hoped might be passed. I desire that the Railread Company also be required to fence against hogs, and I went before the Committee and urged this amendment to the bill, but the Committee regarded the amendment fatal to the passage of the bill and refused to amend it. I hope the bill will pass.
The bill passed by yeas, 56; nays, 15.
THE CIVIL CODE.
The SPEAKER announced the regular order to be the consideration of the bill [S 271] concerning proceedings in civil cases.
The reading of the bill was commenced by section, and amendments offered as each section was read.
Mr. MOODY moved to amend Section 38, Subdivision 6, by inserting after the word "record," the words, "Except as in this section hereinafter specfied." Also, by adding at the close of line "seven" the words, "Upon judgment of Courts of Record which have been rendered in connection with a foreclosure of a mortgage upon real estate within six years from the time of such judgment."
Mr. MOODY--That simply applies where there are foreclosures of mortgages where parties have sold the real estate, receiving nearly all of their money, and still hold their judgment over against the party, who will continue to hold that judgment over for twenty years. It seems to me that where parties have had a mortgage on property and foreclosed the same, and were paid nearly all of the amount due, it ought to be closed up within this time--six years. It does not seem right to hold the judgment over a mortgage when the mortgagee holds the property--to keep this judgment hanging over him for twenty years. Sii years is a sufficient time to hold that judgment.
On motion by Mr. McINTOSCH, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. CARTER moved to amend Section 38 by striking out the words in line 19, "hereafter executed," and insert in lieu "judgments of a Court of Record;" also by striking out of lines 20 and 21 the words "of judgments of Courts of Record."
Mr. CARTER--This amendment applies only to promissory notes, bills of exchange and other written contracts for the payment of money hereafter executed. There are a great many notes and contracts now in existence. If this law repeals the law upon that subject there will be no limitation on the contracts now in existence. Therefore I move to strike out the words "hereafter executed." I see no reason why there should be a distinction between a judgment of the Court of Record and promissory notes. For those reasons I want the words out.
The amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. COLE moved to strike out subdivisions 5 and 6 of the same section, and insert the following: "Upon promissory notes, bills of exchange and other written contracts, judgments of Courts of Record, and for the recovery of real estate, within twenty years." He said: This amendment I offer is exactly in the same shape it was when it came from the Revision Committee. I think it is a proper one--that twenty years is not too long a time within which to recover such property.
Mr. STEWART considered twenty years too long a time for such claims to run. He wanted the section to remain as it is, requiring the action to be brought within ten years on this class of claims.
Mr. CARTER said: I think ten years is long enough. There is only one State in the Union which extends the time beyond that. Kentucky extends it to fifteen years. I do not see the justice in saying that citizens of all the States around us shall have the right, if they have a claim against a citizen of this State, to hold it without action for twenty years and when we hold a claim against one of their citizens we must bring that action from between six and ten years.
Mr. KENNER was opposed to the amendment.
The amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. LINSDAY moved to amend Section 255 by adding: "When the application is based upon the causes mentioned in the third subdivision of said section the granting of a change, or refusing the same, shall be in the discretion of the Judge."
Mr. LINSDAY said: "I think that this change ought to be made. The parties to a suit should not be allowed to take change of venue at their pleasure, but the Court should have some discretion in the matter."
Mr. BENHAM thought the section should be left as it is. If a man is willing to go into Court and swear that he can not have justice in the Court, that should satisfy the Court that the cause ought to be transferred.
Mr. STEWART thought the change would work to the detriment of the people rather than improve the state of affairs in that direction. He was in favor of the existing law in that respect.
Mr. LINSDAY--In civil cases we all know that there is scarcely at any time any excitement existing in the community but what the man who has the most money and can carry his case out of the County defeats the man who has no money to pay for his witnesses, thus causing the poor man to suffer. I say it ought to be left to the discretion of the Court whether or not there is a real cause for a change of venue.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--I hope the amendment will prevail. The Constitution says: "Justice shall be administered speedly and without delay." There is no lawyer here who has knowledge of practice but what knows that a change of venue is merely to delay cases. Persons practice law all over this State who delay causes as long as they can by filing affidavits. When they get into another Court they are entitled to one more change. Cases involving real estate are changed to Courts where they have not a sufficient amount of evidence, and the case is continued from year to year simply for the purpose of, probably, depriving the lawful owner of the use of his property. I can see no reason why these trials on the rights of property should be so transferred. I hope the amendment will prevail so as to put an end to this practice of delaying causes.
Mr. KENNER--The Constitution also says that justice shall be administered impartially, as well as speedily. If a man does not want a Judge to try his case, he had not ought to try it. I have known of many cases in which you could no more get justice than you could fly. Judges are men like everybody else, and we should not put too much within their grasp. In many cases this page: 81[View Page 81] change of venue works detrimental, but in the majority of cases it is right.
Mr. RYAN was in favor of the amendment, for the reason that causes are greatly delayed under the present law upon that subject; also, that it is no material help towards securing impartial justice in the majority of cases.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. COTTON moved to amend Section 292, line one, by inserting the word "or affirm" after the word "swear." He said there were many people who would not swear. This amendment would meet their cases.
The amendment was adopted.
Then the House adjourned.
