The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1860-02-09

Mr.. benson favored the amendment. III,
thought it endangered the passage Of tn,
bill and he wished the bill to pass.
Mr.. Blackford hoped the amendment woult
not be made. The black birds were grea
nuisance in the whole northwest.
Mr.. Peet would vote for the bill if thc
amendment were made.
Mr.. Kellogg thought a man might vote
against the amendment and have Just a:
large heart, as large as the opposition.
Mr.. lie Lacheur said he would not have
bounty. He thought the birds benefit
that all birds, insects and beasts were so, ex
cept the rattlesnakes. If gentlemen world
get some good brandy,-he had not beer
able to, in Des Moines, Laughter) or so.1t
good old rye, and soak the grain in it, they
would see the birds reeling and tumbling If
all directions and they could then pick then
up. No bounty was required.
Mr.. Gillett stated that these black birds
destroyed 20 acres of grain for him in a single
year.
Mr.. Ellis opposed the bounty law in toto
He moved to amend by striking out all ex
cept the last section after the cnacting
clause.
Lost.
The question then recurring on the amend
ment to strike out all relating to black birds
The same was carried.
Yeas Sc, nays %.
Rule suspended and bill passed.
Yeas ga, nays 20.
BILLS on THEIR PASSAGE.
An act to repeal part of section 2705 o.
the Code, which provi les that no prosecution
for adultery shall be had except upon the
complaint of the husband or wife.
Mr.. Claggett hoped the bill would not pass
BY it we would open the door to prosecutions
that would destroy the sacredness of the
family circle. Malice would often prompt to
prosecutions of this character. He moved
it be indefinitely postponed.
Mr.. Curtis spoke in favor Of the bill.
Mr.. Claggett said there might be anecessi
ty in Marion county for the repeal. No snch
necessity existed in Les county. The statute
now was more liberal than the law heforc.-
We must not legislate for special instances
or mar the general harmony of the law by
provisions for special ol,rageS upon society
He appealed to the gentleman from Des
Moines, if the law woull not invade the peace
of domestic life by allowing malicious pros
ecutions.
Mr. Bennett opposed the law.
Mr.. Kellogg hoped We should hear from
Judge Hall.
Mr. Hall said it was bnst to let well enough
alone. Under the present law he thought thC
crime had not increased. Before that it was
a fact that many pros cutions were offer
amended that failed. If the immediate rcl
tives, the injured wife or husband, preferred
to pass over the offence without a public
prosecution, it was not the proper provinceo o.
the world outside to interfere. 1t was bes,
that these disgusting trials. and expenses
should not be encouraged. They too often
resulted in the destruction of the happiness
of families-of the social ruin Of the inno-
cent and the virtueus. He thought furthe,
legislation unnecessary.
Mr.. Jennings opposed the law. No true
wife would seek to expose even the misdeeds
of her husband. 1t was even better tha,
such an evil should go unpunished than tho
family Of the recreant he destroyed.
Mr.. Curtis spoke further in favor of the
bill.
Mr.. lie Lacheur said the criminal code o
Britain underwent a great modification ir
1884. 1t was then changed so as now tc
very nearly agree with the present law o
this State. He would favor no change in
the present law.
Mr. Williams said he was not prepared tc
vote at present. It was said the only oppo.
nents to the bill last session were single men
Now it is advocated for the purpose of al
lowing the prosecution Of husbands or wives
at the instance of others than the husband 0,
wife. If he could consistently, he would
vote for this bill. He would be willing thesG
married people should be made indictabl(
upon complaint of single persons.
Mr.. Williamson, of Louisa, was in favo,
Of this bill. The crime was the worst that
could be perpetrated in society. The law
now gave protection to this crime that NJ
other had.
Mr.. Gurley hoped the bill would not bt
pressed to q vote. He desired time further
to consider the bill.
Mr.. Hall hoped the vote would be taker
now, that we might proceed with the NOR,
necessary legislation. This question hat
been discussed for several sessions.
Mr. Gurley said it made no difference tha
this bill had been discussed by other Legis
iatures. 1t is now our duty to consider it
and we should not dispose of it without dn'
consideration. For one, he was not now
prepared to vote on the question.
He moved to lay on the table.
Carried
An act to amend chapter 15F of Laws o
1s5S-the General Incorporation Law.
Mr.. Claggett moved to refer the bill back
The present law was defective in many
respects. He desired general remodellns
of the law.
Mr.. Peet hoped the motion would be with
drawn. The bill! was one desired by som,
thousands of his constituents.
Mr.. Claggett wished to accommodate mem
bers but he was satisfied some changes mus
be made, and they should all be included il
bill for that purpose.
Mr.. Berreman said many changes wer
required.
Mr.. Hall said the present law was most in
congruous. They were obliged to disregar,
the law.
Messrs. Paulk and Merrill hoped the mo
ton would be withdrawn. The bill was on
greatly desired by the people of McGregor
Messrs Baker and Ru ldick were in fayo
of radical changes of the present law.
Motion carried, and bill: re-committed.
Mr.. Gillett, by leave, introduced bill 70
the government Of towns and counties.
Laid on the table, and ordered printed
Mr.. Beal, by leave introduced resolution
u - -