The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1860-02-09
HOUSE.
AFTERNOON, Monday, Jan. 80.
Hills ON THIRD READING.


BILLS on THIRD READING.
An act to exempt certain land from taxation. The
bin exempts 40 acres of land, if 1t has five of
planted timber growing IL, unless the 40 is
worth than $500, in which case the is
be assessed.
Mr.. Harris advocated the passage Of the bill. He
spoke of the scarcity timber In the western part of
the State and urged the passage of the bin because
would encourage the growth of timber, promote the
settlement of the West and largely increase the ag
gregate property Of the State
Mr.. lie Lacheur spoke against the bin. He thought
it all proprietary scheme. Spectators not
with the present increase of prices of land
they wanted now to get their lands exempt lie was
indignant at the proposition. If the poor want
ed to buy these lands, the Spectator would want
largely increased price for them. lie hoped the pro-
ducers of the State would reject the proposition.
Mr.. Harris replied, he regretted his distinguished
friend went of half cooked
Mr.. lie Lacheur-"No, sir, full cooked" (Laugh
tcr.)
Mr.. IIarris.-He Represented no clique, class, but
he advocated the law for the benefit of the whole
state and pccay of the western part of the State.
Mr. lie Lacheur replied, arguing that the lands cost
the spectators 80 cents per acre. and If they would
sell at 80 they could SELL But now they wanted to
exempt their lands.
Mr.. Ellis thought the bill offered no inaucement TO
spectators The cost would be far more than the
amount of the tax
The bill passedyeas 81, nays %.
An Act relating to the giving Of testimony.
The bin provides tat accompces shall not testify
for each other though they sever in their pleas, nor
professional testify TO the matters coming to
them us such, nor husband wife to testify against
each other
Mr.. Caldwell stated the present law provided for all
except the first and that, the Constitution
provided for it..
Mr.. Clagget said that upon that point he must dis
agree with the decision OF the Supreme Court, He did
believe that 1t designed that the Constitution
SHOULD allow husband and wife to testify against each
other lawyers against their CLIENTS, or ministers
against their parishioners, to secrets conded to
them under the discharge Of their professional duties
We had'the same right that the Supreme Court had
to the Constitution, and IL duty-to
put construction upon Tit was our sworn
duty so to do.
Let the Legislature say what is its construction of
the Constitution. That construction the Supreme
Court will regard such exposition of the will of
the people thereon.
Mr. Caldwell said that TO the two last eotions of
he bill, the subject covered by the law
of the Code and the law now, bro sder than the
law now proposed.
As to the first section, he believed the Supreme
Caurt had rightly decided 1t.
Between parties jointly indicted. there NJ " le-
gal interest" They never excluded from testi
flying for each other when tried separately, but only
on grounds Of public policy. But that doctrine was
exploded 1t goes to the credibilty of witnesses
only The accomplish is competent witness, but the
jury shall judge whether he is 70 be believed. Out
side of the Constitution the Supreme Court right
In their decision. But the Constitution fixes it
beyond controversy. BY that, every human being
competent witness unless he has legal interest in
the suit The Supreme Court will be bound to dsre-
gard the law five pass It, IT useless to pass and
worse than useless to pass it.
Mr.. Claggett spoke further in favor Of the bill.
Mr. Pee, moved TO lay the bill on the table
Carried.