Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1854-02-05
TENNESSEE iEGIsLATURE i:
HOUSE-NoRNISG SESSION.
SArugbAY, Feb. 4.

The House met pursuant to adIournme DIE
Sykes in the Chair, and the journal Of Yesterday
was read after which
Mr.. Patton presented a memorial which was re-
ferred to the Committee on Gains without being
read. ss,f Sc 1 - p
The House then took up Mr.. Hebh's resolution
offered on Yesterday, when Mr.. Hebb withdrew it.
Mr. Lucas called the attention of the House to
the fact that the North Western Railroad bill had
not been yet transmitted to the Senate as was or
dered by the resolution, and contested the regulari
ty Of the motion to reconsider the vote passing the
BILL being made before the motion to reconsider the
vote to transmit had been acted upon; and his view
was sustained by Mr.. Travis, who remarked fur
ther that the member who moved the reconsidera-
tion (Mr. Tharpe) had not, as the rule required,
voted with the majority; he had not voted at all for
| he wasnot in the House at the time. siif-l
Mr.. Tharpe argued to the point of order in OPP
| position to Messrs Lucas and Travis; and, the
| Chair decided that Mr.. Tharpes motion was in Or
| der '''t@
Mr. Mathis appealed from the decision of the
Chair for the purpose Of getting the sense Of the
| House on new question; when , r ---,.-.
| Mr.. Richardson moved to take up the special or
] der; and,
Mr. Lucas opposed the motion, and hoped the
| House would decide the point of order at once.
Mr.. Travis read the rules applicable to the ques-
ton of order; and, Mr.. Richardson's motion pre-
| vailed; and the House proceeded to the special er-
| der the Law Reform Bill "4
Mr. Buford having the floor, resumed his remarks
in favor of the bill. When he closed on yesterday
! he was addressing himself especially to gentlemen
of the Legal Profession. Mr.. Bailey had made some
| remarks calculated to produce impression that
this bill was intended to injure the Legal Profess
sion without beneftting the public. He, Mr. Bu-
ford) still would address himself particularly to the
! Profession, in order to remove such impressions
and to let the decision of this question be made from
comparison of the merits of the two systems, and
not from any consideration of any partial effect it
might have on any one class of citizens He express
ed his respect for and confidence in the integrity of
the gentlemen of the Bar, but they ought to ap-
proach this question with view to its own merits
without any professional and party prejudices Mr.
| Buford then proceeded again to discuss and eluci-
date the operations Of the two systems re-assert-
ing the position assumed by him on yesterday. In
relation to the change alleged be made by this bill
| in the law ofevidence, he showed that the whole
change amounted only to declaring as competent,
witnesses not admitted as such under the present
| system; the new system did not touch the rules re-
ative to the credtbilty of witnesses-that must be
! weighed by the Court and the decision be govern
ed by the weight of evidence. The bill proposed
to admit all evidence that might throw light the
case and let the court and jury decide what degree
of credence it was entitled to. He alluded to the
assertions that the people had not called for this
change, and that DO petitions or memorials had
| been sent here on the subject He would not give
straw for a law passed under the force of popular
clamor; it would only be necessarily to rouse up a
parcel of fanatics any given subject to have this
House flooded knee-deep with petitions and memo
rails for Legislation to suit their peculiar views
| The argument sought to be drawn from the
absence of petitions ought 10 have no weight at
all in forming Judgment the merits of the
Reform proposed He denied further that this
bill retained both the Law and Equity Courts
seeking to engraft one upon the other as had been
asserted: and he also denied that twas impossible
to do without the Equity Courts. He had now in
| his pocket letter from distinguished member of
the Bench in this State this very subject which
he would read to Il House before he concluded his
remarks. He referred to several documents and
authorities in support OF the principles of this BILL
| Curtis, Lord and Chapman, of Massachusetts, the
| New York Commissioners Crittenden of Kentuckv
Lumpkin, Of Georgia, and others who had all tes-
tilted to the practcabilty and usefulness of the
system proposed by this bill He also read extracts
from the letter above alluded to- from the on Jno
c. Humphreys, highly approving Of the provisions
of the bill now before the House. Mr. 3. concu l..
ded by hoping that the House would give the bill
fair and due consideration and not shut their eyes
and rush mady in opposition to it. If there We're
any Objectionable provisions in the BILL let them be
stricken out, or amended; and he appealed to the
gentlemen of the Bar and to other members of this
House, to come up and aid in perfectng the BILL =
He did not offer the bill as perfect but he hoped
members would waive minor objections and vote
on the principle of the bill - .... -. p
| Mr. House then obtained the floor. He had not
until very recently, intended to take any part in
this discussion and he felt himself scarcely prepared
to make speech, after the elaborate and eloquent
| arguments already made-but he would endeayor
| to give few views Of his own on some important
| points in the bill He would first however allude
| 10 some remarks Of Mr. Travis, on Yesterday which
seemed to insnuate that the opponents of the bill
| were in fact "Old Foges." He would inform that
| gentleman that all "change' was not ''retorm" He
was in favor Of reforn-but he was not in favor of
changing every thing when there was no necessity
for it. and especially when as in this case the rem
edy is worse than the evil it proposes to correct
| There was spirit abroad in the land under the
name OF reform which ought to be checked 1t is
| easy to pull down-the labor Of years may be dis
troyed in few hours-but it is not so easy to build
up. He alluded to the position of the gentleman
| from Giles on certain question recently before
! this house
(Mr. Buford arose to explain, he supposed the
gentleman had reference to the liquor question and
stated the position OF his constituents thereon,l
Mr.. H. resumed. He did not care what was the
position of the gentemens constituents on the Id
| uor law, he meant to show the spirit which was
abroad running ahead Of the people in the name of
progress and reform. Here were lobby members
perneatlng this hall from end to end, lecturng the
members on their duties and on popular favor. DO
Etical salvation &c, talking about the people"
"Reorm," "Young America &c He had good
deal of Young America in him himself but be was
sometimes disposed to think that Young America
was wild ASS colt" He protested against all
these outside pressures to influence the course and
action Of members on this floor -
Mr.. II. then reviewed the passage of the Gov
ernors message the subject matter of the bill
he showed by reference to the Constitution that
the members of the convention had contemplated
the establishments OF special chancery courts The
example adduced by the Governor to prove the de-
lays of the present system had no application, as
the occurrence Of such case had been rendered
impossible by the act of 1872 which he quoted.
He retuted the objection made to this act bv the
gentleman from Giles. Both he (Mr b and his
Exceency laid particular stress on the fact that
man might be dragged about with his witnesses,
&c. and then be thrown out by demurrer. Mr.
House showed that in such case as the one sun
posed, demurrer would not lie at all Such = |
case could not occur
There were three leading objects to be had in |
view in every system of Jurisprudence, viz: that
Justice be administered as cheapiy as speedily. and
well as possible. He would now show that not
one OF these objects would be secured by this bill |
as effectually as by the present system (And Mr.,
House proceeded to show, from the provisions of |
tho hill bat thara ,voulJ ba