Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1861-03-14
The Farm Mortgage Bill.
RrMARKs OF HON. JOHN 9. CLARK.

OF Grant county, an the dssembiy, Feb.
2Stb, on presenting substitute for the
ball CONCERNING proceedings a. Court.
az certain cases.
Mr. SPEAKER:-Being well satisfied that
the passage Of the bill now under consider
alton cannot do the farm mortgagors any
good from the fact that it is unconsttution-
al in many otis provisions, and believing
also that it would be far more runous to
the State than State assumption, present
substitute and as compromise and special
legislation are the order Of the day, in the
spirit of compromise, / present the substi-
tute, modified, but special in its nature.
! am well satisfied that a general law can
be devised that will ensure all the purposes
Of these mortgagors--and that viii AZ the
same time disgrace no one as this bill EVIL
IDENTIFY would. Permit me to say farther,
that no man sympathises more with these
unfortunate mortgagors than do. Many
Of them are my neighbors, my personal
| friends; many of them are aged, whose
heads are being whitened by the frosts Of
many winters, who were the pioneers OF
the country and who by long years ct toll
and priyation gained a reasonable amount
of this worlds goods,and by this false step
are in danger OF being stripped OF them all.
They are not only entitled % our respect
but our sympathy, and for one am not
only willing but anxious to do all that l
can to relieve them, but at the same time |
must be excused from taking step that
would not only disgrace us individually
disgrace us collec lively, but would also dis
grace the State.
GThe substitute was rejected and the ques-
ton being on ordering the bill to third
reading, Mr.. Clark addressed the House as
follows:
Mr. Speaker: do not understand the
motives Of those who support this bill,
knowing as they do, that many of its pro-
visions are unconstitutional and cannot
grant the moltgagors any relief and may
do them great deal of harm.
Far be it from me TO ilnpute improper
motives, but | must say that there Is a
mystery about this matter.
This bill has in it many unconstitutional
provisions, and those provisions are SO In
tilnately connected and interviewer wisli
those that are essentially necessary To ena-
bIe these mortgagors TO make a proper aid
legal defense that when those unconstitu-
tional and unnecessary parts are wiped out,
as they will he ly the Courts, away will
90 those that are essential.
The first section Of this bill provides fol
the appointment Of Commissioner "to
take all the testimony which either party
may desire to give in such action,and which
either party may desire to use on the trial
Of such action. Soon sixteen provides
that only one Commissioner shall be APP
pointed within each Circuit for all the cases
pending therein. Sec. eighteen requires
the plaintiff to thus take and produce all
his testimony before the defendant shall
be required to take any. Now | ask any
man Of common sense if these provisions
are not plainly in violation Of The Consti-
tuition? Not only plainly in violation Of its
spirit, but plainly in violation Of Sec. 10
of Article Z, which says: "The testimony
in causes in equity shall be taken in like
manner as in cases at law; and the office
of master in chancery is hereby prohibited. =
Are You not here fagrantly trampling on
the Constitution Will not every Court
in the land so decide? What says the
Supreme Court! On page 81, vol. 8 OF
Wisconsin Reports you will find the fol-
lowing: "We have no doubt that each party
to suit in chancery is, under our Consti-
tuition, entitled to have his witnesses ex-
amined in open Court, subject, of course,
to the occasional exceptions provided for in
cases at law. He may, perhaps. be enti-
tied Gf be demands it, to have the witness
es Of the adverse party SO examined, sub
Jet to the like occasional exceptions"
Do gentlemen suppose that the Courts
will reverse this decision? Do they knew
of an instance in which respectable court
ever decided to the contrary! Can they
point out single instance in which court
denied to party the right to examine his
own witnesses in open court when demand
ed Yea, more; can they point out a
single instance in which court denied,
when demanded, to party the right to
have the witness of the adverse party SO
CAftllllilSNS OCttlClliSu thdb SOulOo IL
quently refer long accounts to commission
ers or justices Of the peace, to examine and
take testimony and report, but they forget,
apparently, that this exception is based,
not upon constitutional, but upon an old
common law provision. Gentlemen must
remember that laws in force at the time Of
making contracts are construed as parts Of
the contracts, and that the Legislature,
while changing and modifying existing
remedies and rules Of evidence, have no
authority to SO change them as to materi-
ally impair the rights aud interests offered
itors. They may argue as much as they
choose about What the law should be; may
quote the opinions Of as many eminent
men, LAWYERS and jurists IS they choose;
that only proves what the law should be,
not wha. il is.
Now, sir, section FIVE Of this act changes
the rule of evidence; requires a party to
prove negative outside Of his own oath;
subverts his rights; and declares that the
.abacaJ ..,,tI, e1.-..