The Portage County Democrat. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-01-25


from the unsuccessful party.
He explained the o-jects of the bill and its
effect, as resirainer of litigation, and urged.
its passage.
Mr. Voris opposed the passage OF the bill
as an innovation upon the long established
practice of jury trials. that might injariously
affect the Independence aHd freedom of jurors
Mr. Vincent supported the bill as useful
reform.
Mr. McCIuRg thought it very clear case.
that this bill would place the burden of the
expense upon tbo,e who have the wrong side
of quarrel. e ss
Mr. Plants opposed the bill as involving un-
willing litigants With meritorious canses in the
expenditure of various costs that they might
never recover back.
Mr. Harlan opposed it upon the ground shat
it would hamper justice, and unnecessarily
burden suittrs
Mr.. Brown supported the bill as a. whole
some reform. that wonld discourage litigation.
but could not operate uni lstly.
Mr. Kerry could not see why the jury fee
should be paid by the successful party at all.
Ifit had been practice of long continuance
for the gaining party TO six dollars to the jury.
he did not yet see the justice of it, and was
ready for the reform
Mr. Stedman was not lawyer He did not
want cheap justice. He wanted those who
went to law to pay the cost. If the people
understood how this legislature were disposed
to encourage litigation. some Cromwell would
soon drive as out of these Halls.
After further debate, motion to refer the
bill was lost ; another motion to indefinitely
postpone, was lost, when the bill was laid up
on the table and the House adjourned.
.z-ae4 THURSDAY, Jan. 19.
SEsArE.-Mr. Collins gave notice of bill
providing for the publication of the General
Laws in newspapers.
Mr.. Harrison gave notice of a bill providing
for a Uniform rate of interest at 8 per cent.
Mr. Monroe introduced a bill to enable the
Canal Bank of Cleveland to close it's. affairs.
He also introduced a bill to relieve the bill
holders of the Seneca County Bank.
RESoLuTIoN.
Mr. Holmes resolution providing for the
election of three. additional clerks was taken
from the table.
Mr. Jones moved to amend by striking out
the enrolling clerk. Carried.
The resolution thus amended was adopted.
Mr. Cox nominated Mr. Homer Norton of
Trumbull county. for Engrossing Clerk. Mr.
Eason nominated James McMasters.
Mr. Norton received "a votes. ~
Mr. McMaster received votes.
Mr. Norton was declared elected. &
Mr. Jones nominated VIM. D. Bickham of
Hamilton county, for Reporting Clerk, No
other nomination was made. MIR Bickham
received "a votes and was declared elected.
Mr. Stanley moved to reconsider the vote
by which the Senate refused to elect an enroll
ing CLERK. Lost-ayes Is, nays 10.
1t was objected by Mr. Jones and others
that such an officer is net now required.
IN Committee OF THE WHOLE.
On motion of Mr. Stanley. the Senate went
into Committee of the, Whole on the orders
Of the day-Mr Cox in the chair -.
The Committe considered the bill under de-
liberation this morning-the bill to tax dogs
for the protection of sheep. ~ r..
Mr. Garfield said, it does not become me ! o
speak dogmatically on the question of the con-
stitutionnlity of This or any other bill. YET
wish to suggest a few thoughts on the ques-
tion raised this forenoon in regard to it. It
was said that our constitution forbids the
levyipg of any poll tax--and as the common
law considers dog property-therefore a dog
tax is unconstitutional. On the question of
the common law claim now, as l did this
forenoon. that Blackstone does net consider a
dog as property only in aqualifed term. He
says, "To steal dog is not felony by common
law" but the anatator says it has recent
ly been made misdemeanor by statute of
Victoria. The question is then to be decided
by statute. Now, during the FIRST year after
the formation of our constitution two statutes
were enacted which seem to me to settle the
question so far as precedent can do it. The
first makes it lawful for any person to kill
any dog roaming from the premises of his
owner. This will not apply to other domestic
animals, and shows that property in dogs ex
isis only in a qualified sense The second
statute makes the point still clearer by em
powering cities and towns to levy tax on
dogs. We see, then, that by the commen
law, and by our constitution as interpreted by
these statutes, the bill before us is clearly con
stitutional. -rf-. .... -....- .s, -.
As to the expediency of the bill presume
there is no question. We shall doubtless all
be willing TO save the State the $3.50 900
worth of property destroyed by dogs during
one year. $50 49, .,s4
Mr. Monroe could not discover any cousti
tutional objections to the law. and opposed
the motion of Mr.. Jones because it wosld i'm.
pair the, efficiency of the law. Mr.. NJ. refer.
red to the formidable loss Of sheep last year
by dega-amounting in the State to $l5o.000,.
After considerable further discussion, and
sundry amendments, one of which was to ex.
cept ladies' poodle dogs from the pains and
penalties of the act, the committee rose aud
reported, and the bill was referred to the com.
on Agriculture. an b.;,, .rr .so-a s..-r,i ne,
HousE-Mr Plants frem the committee on
fees and salaries, reported back h. B 81. fix
Ing the salary of supreme judges at So 600.
with amendments, when the bill and amend.
ments were laid on the table. .,, ~.
The joint resolution providing for reporting
-,ll:,k;... tba ,vooaal;nc, oc4 A. IL,