Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-01-17

and referred as follows;
H. B. 260-To punish slander In the Peniten'
tiary.-Judiciary. i
H B. 26I-To amend section Of the act OF
March q, 1858, relating to Incorporated compa-
pes-C Corporations.
HI Requiring county auditors !, make
returns OF the fees and salaries OF county officers
Com mittee of the Whole
H.,B. 283-For the relief OF Jonathan West
Public Lands.
S. B. 1870 amend sections and OF the
Actof April II, 1857 for the surrender or trans
fer orplank.roads-- Roads and Highways.
II. b. 72.-For the protection OF surties In
certain cases--was read a third time.
Mr.. ANDREWS, opposed the passage OF the
Bill, 90 calculated to ipjurously affect the rules
Of trade and credit.
Mr.. BROWNE of Miami, favored the bill, as
il would restore q salutary practice that was
abolished by the passage or that unversality'
which abolished almost every thing, the "code
Of civil procedure" He cited the workings OF
the present system as evidence of the necessity
for the Bill.
Mr.. ROBINSON explained the object of the
bill, and advocated its passage.
Mr.. VORIS opposed the bill. He had re-
fused to recommend it as a member Of the Ju'
dietary Committee. He did not think such an
enactment was necessary, as the code OF civil
procedure really makes ample provision for the
protection of saritie.s
Mr.. BROWNE; of Miami, said the present
system notonly protects the security ;but requires
him to collect the debt of the money lender
from the friends he may have accommodated.
Mr.. HOWELL supported the bill, as it
would place every money-lender in the position
of banker.
Mr.. PLANTS said he did not see the pres
sing need of such an act. IL would compel the
payee of note, to see the security and have
his renewal, or commence proceedings on all
paper at maturity. He thought the present
laws are sufficient for all useful purposes in this
relation. Unless he was convinced OF some
pressing necessity for it, he should vote against
the bill--ii It were only to save the disturbance
of the Statutes, that are changed go often as to
render the books almost useless as before they
are distributed.
Mr.. KRUM said if we believed that the
printed Statutes contained all the legislative
wisdom that could bo expressed in laws, it was
better for us to go home and do no more harm
He thought the bill could work no harm, since II
would keep the attention Of principal and secu-
curity upon the debt, as well as that OF the
creditors Claims should not he left till they
are forgotten, and the maker OF note becomes
ipsolyent. He was for the bill
Mr.. BLAKESLEE also supported the bill al
working q much needed reform.
Mr.. BALDWI IN said he regarded this bill as
a step in progress that would not 60 backwards
| It would make all securities alike, whether Of
endorsers or underwriters.
Mr.. FELLOWS opposed the bill as likely Il
complicate the laws. He would not have et
| much TO depend upon contingencies. He want
ed a plain, straight forward law, understood By
| ALL
MIR. SCOTT, of Warren, could not see hov
this bill could complicate the laws. 1t woulC
rather simplify them He thought it the most
natural thing for the holder OF the note TO looE
we'll to the principal and surety; and it seldom
happens that it Ia not convenient Tor him to fnt
them. The present law places the burden o
collection on the surety, while this bill place
| IL on ths holder of the note, where IL should be
! Mr.. HILLS thought the bill was plain, ant
of easy comprehension. Sureties are usually
the best men in the community, and it was no
right to place the responsibility Of collection up
| on the surety.
| Mr.. KERR took another view Of the matter
/ Money is borrowed upon the credit of the sure
ty; and the responsibility was really with them
II this bill passes, 1t will necessarily make |
more difficult to borrow, aud lenders will tax,
advantage Of 1t, to exact more interest, an
make It harder for the borroWer. Nor is tn,
objection against the change and multiplication
of statutes, without its force. We should ayoi
these changes as much as possible. Lawyer
scarcely keep up with them; then how sbaI
Others know them.
|, Mr.. COX said the common sense view of th
of the matter is that the money leader is reall
the responsible party 10 these transactions, an
the onus of the collection and risk should NJ
fall uptn the surety. He would place 1t M tt
leader, as this bill proposes.
Il Mr.. FELLOWS thought the passage Of Ii
bill would only set the money sharks Of ii
country upon securities. and place the suri!it
in their power.
] Mr.. FLAGG was opposed to this bill. H
was 60 opposed to the system Of security, that
would fain favor the. abolisbment of oil rem
edes against all sureties, except in cases Of gui
ranty OF transferred paper. He instanced case
, where under the bill nete holder may be swil
died out .of his claim. 1t leaves too much
parole testimony, and general uncertainty. H
: hoped the bill would not pass.
Mr., DEVORE was opposed to interfering
. this matter, and disturbing the present systen
!. The bill is not needed; in its operation 1t woul
= increase litigation and compel many suits thl
z would not now take place.
e Mr.. ROBINSON replied to the argumen
e that frauds and extortions would take place III
II der the bill; it was not an objection TO it th
bad men may take advantage of others.
It Mr.. FLAGG said the bill was too vague
= defining who is security under its provision
The vote was then taken on the bill, when II
bill passed-yeas Sc, nays 40.
The House then took recess