IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, January 20, 1881--10 a.m.The Lieutenant Governor commanded attention Dr. Aaron Wood, Chaplain of the Soldiers' Orphans' Home and Home for Feeble-Minded Children, at Knightstown.
Mr. Menzies introduced a bill [S. 125] to amend Section 3 of the act for the protection of wild game [so as to shorten the time in which quails and pheasants may be killed one month], which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
The Lieutenant Governor announced the special order for this hour, being consideration of Mr. Comstock's bill [S. 62] to remove the disabilities of coverture. The question being on the pending amendment (Mr. Viehe's) offered yesterday morning--
Mr. Brown--If this bill passes and becomes part of the common law, a married woman can make any kind of a contract she choose, and then a serious question would arise as to whether or not her husband would be liable for her contracts.
Mr. Comstock--Under this bill a married woman will be invested with the same rights as an unmarried woman, except that she can not convey real estate without the consent of her husband. Her property would be liable for her own contracts.
Mr. Langdon favored enlarging the rights of married women, providing it can be done without infringing on the marital relations and rights of the husband. There should be great care taken that contention and strife be not brought to the family hearth-stone, which sacred place should be carefully protected from anything like contention and strife. This bill is treading on very dangerous ground. Such legislation should be perfected with great care and deliberation, and Senators should not jump in blindly, when a little time might make the bill more perfect and acceptable to all. He moved to refer it to the committee on Revision of Laws.
Mr. Bell was anxious to have this bill discussed and considered at once, and without delay. Under the present law, the husband is liable to pay for necessaries purchased by the wife, but not liable for her contracts, and the passage of this bill would not fix the husband any liability for the wife's contrast. The effect of the bill is to allow the wife to make contracts separate and apart from her husband, making her separate property liable to her contracts. The time will some when the disposition of this question will be forces upon us and its deliberate consideration will undoubtedly result result in the passage of this or a similar bill. After a full discussion of this bill, he had no objection to the reference proposed by the Senator from Tippecanoe (Mr. Langdon).
Mr. Spann was of opinion that this bill, if passed, would wipe out all other laws in reference to married women now on the Statute Books and cited instances where every dollar's worth of her property might be swept away, leaving her not even so much as a dress or a bonnet. He favored extending every right to married women in so far as the law may be just to them and their consorts.
Mr. Brown was not troubled with the fears expressed by the Senator from Rush (Mr. Spann). This bill should be amended by the addition of a proviso, that when the wife's property is put to sale upon execution sued out upon a judgment obtained upon her contract, the law of exemption ought to apply. Deeds and mortgages are the incumbrances contemplated by the provisions of this bill. Under this bill, after exhausting the property of the wife, it is not clear but the property of the husband would then be liable; and if passed, the bill should be amended so that the husband shall positively not be liable for the new engagements the law may permit the wife to enter into.
Mr. Chapman considered that the danger apprehended by the Senator from Jackson [Mr. Brown] does not exist in fact. He ha been recently of opinion that the Courts were wrong in deciding that the husband is liable for contracts of the wife, even for necessaries, unlessthe husband had authorized the wife to enter into such contracts. A late English decision requires proof of authorization by the husband of the wife as his agent to make such engagements, before the husband can be held legally liable.
Mr. Menzies--From the difference of opinion already expressed this morning, it is made plain that there is grave doubt about the effect of the bill were it passed into a law. At this time he page: 66[View Page 66] was no prepared to give this bill any support. In its present shape it looks like a bill in the interest of the legal profession.
Mr. Woods at first blush was of opinion that this bill, if passed, would produce 10,000 lawsuits in this State, if not an equal number of divorces. It proposes to strike down every law passed on this subject since the organization of the State. While always in favor of enlarging the rights of married women, he would not favor a bill nullifying all previous acts concerning married women, including all provisions heretofore enacted for their protection. Proper barriers ought to be placed about such legislation,in order that proper domestic relations may be maintained between husband and wife.
Mr. Henry favored a reference of this bill to some Committee which would give it care consideration. He cited one provision in this bill which would prove perfectly useless. The time has come when we should go back to the former status of married women, or wipe out every distinction so far as the rights of married women are concerned under the law. He would put man and wife upon the very same level before the law, as if they did not sustain to each other the relations of man and wife. He opposed removing from the husband his legal liability for the support of his wife and of his family.
Mr. Comstock felt no more interest in the fate of this bill than in any other which he heartily favored. About its importance there can be no question. Whatever the disabilities of coverture are,they are proposed to be removed by this bill. The question as to what the disabilities really are can be determined by the Courts,and the question for the Senate to consider is: Shall the disabilities of married women be removed, with the single exception mentioned in the bill? He did not believe that the marriage relations existing between husband and wife at all impairs the wife's intellectual faculties, but that she is as capable after marriage as before to manage her own property and act for herself. He would be glad to see the bill referred to a Committee which would give it a full and fair consideration, and was gratified to hear the expressions of opinion in reference to it already made by Senators on this floor this morning.
On motion by Mr. Bell, the bill was referred to a Special Committee of five, who the Lieutenant Governor makes to consist of Messrs. Bell, Grubbs, Viehe, Wilson and Spann.
The Senate then took a recess for dinner.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
A number of petitions were presented for the submission of Constitutional Amendments to a vote of the people, as to whether the right of suffrage shall be extended to women, and whether traffic in intoxicating liquors shall be prohibited.
Mr. Wilson offered a resolution, which was adopted, requiring the Committee on Claims to inquire into the expediency of creating a State Board of Claims, composed of the Auditor, Treasurer aid Secretary of State, to hear and determine all claims against the State, with the right of appeal to the Courts.
NEW PROPOSITIONS
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time and severally referred to appropriate Committee:
By Mr. Major [S. 126]: To amend Section 1 of the redemption of real property act of June 4, 1861.[May redeem by paying 6 per cent. interest within one year.]
Mr. Marvin [S. 127]: To amend Section 26 of the common school law, approved March 26, 1875. [It places the power of choosing a teacher in the hands of the people of each School District.]
By Mr. Poindexter [S. 128]: Concerning in toxicating liquors. [Must procure $100 license from County Commissioners after notice by publication in paper; give $2,000 bond.]
By Mr. Ristine [S. 129]: To amend Section 10 of the Justices' act of May 29, 1852. [Authorizing Justices to imprison for non-payment of costs in State prosecutions.]
By Mr. Spann [S. 130]: To provide for the care and support of pauper children more effectually. [County Commissioners authorized to place under care of matron all sound minded pauper children between the ages of two and sixteen, outside of County Asylum, twenty children to each matron, at a cost not to exceed 30 cents per capita per day for food and clothing.
By Mr. Wilson [S. 131]: To amend Section 13 the State or County line bridge or road corporation law, approved March 2, 1855, so as to allow cities to indorse and guarantee the payment of bonds issued by any such Bridge or Road Company.
By Mr. Wood [S. 132}: To appropriate $6,000 to remove a sand bar in the Calumet River, at the mouth of the State ditch, in Lake County, Indiana or cut a new channel for said river around said bar,
By Mr. Yancy [8. 133]: To amend Sections 1, 10 and 16 of the act of June 9, 1862, in relation to the duties and qualifications of Justices of the Peace. [One Justice for each Township, one additional for each town, two additional for each city exclusive jurisdiction in penal offenses in sum of $25, and concurred jurisdiction with Circuit Courts to $500.)
By Mr. Bell [S. 134): Concerning married women. [Shall have power to sue and be sued the same as unmarried, but shall not bind her real estate without her husband's consent.]
By Mr. Briscoe [S. 130]: Legalizing proceedings of County Boards in reference to the drainage of wet lands.
By Mr. Bundy [S. 136]: Prescribing certain duties of Railroad Companies, requiring such Railroad Companies to sound a whistle and ring a bell at the crossings of turnpikes and other public highways.
By Mr. Coffey [S. 137]: To amend Section 531 of the General Practice Act of June 18, 1852. [Every recognizance shall bind the real estate of the obligors, both principal and security, from the time it is taken and recorded.]
By Mr. Davis [S. 138]: To amend Section 15 of the act regulating general elections. [Polls may be opened between 5 and 6 o'clock a. m. and kept open not later than 8 p. m.]
By Mr. Foster [S. 139]: Amending Section 1 of the supervision of highway act approved 18, 1879. [Allowing supervisors $1.50 a day.]
By Mr. Hostetler [S. 140]: Making it unlawful for any salon to permit the use of any billiard or pool table, or cards, or other games of chance where any spirituous liquors are sold or offered for sale.
By Mr. Kramer [S. 141]: To amend Section 2 of an act supplemental to the act of December 21, 1872, concerning assessment of property, approved March 2, 1879. [Concerning delinquent taxes and the penalties thereon.]
On motion by Mr. Brown, the appointments sent by Governor Gray to the Senate for confirmation were referred to the Standing Committee on Executive Appointments.
The bill [H. R. 27] providing for the submission of legal questions by ta General Assembly or either House thereof. to the Supreme Court for its decision, coming up under the order of messages from the House of Representatives and being read for the first time, it was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The joint resolution [H. R. 1] in regard to the reconstruction by the United States Government of the Wabash and Erie Canal was also read the first time and referred to the Committee on Canals and Internal Improvements.
The following described joint resolutions and bills, coming up in regular order, were read the second time, ordered engrossed and severally passed to the third reading:
page: 67[View Page 67]The joint resolution [S. 9] in relation to contagious diseases of domestic animals.
Mr. Leeper's bill [S. 10] authorizing County Commissioners to convey cemeteries and provide for their management.
Mr. Comstock's bill [S. 39] authorizing County Commissioners to establish and maintain County Asylums for Indigent Children.
Mr. Kramer's bill [S. 86] appropriating moneys to pay members of the Indian Legion.
On motion by Mr. Chapman, the bill was amended by providing that no officer shall receive any fee for services performed under this act.
And then the Senate adjourned0.
