The Indianapolis daily herald. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1865-1868, 1865-11-23

the condition Of the Branch II thu Bank 81 tn,
state az south Rend.
IL was referred 10 the Committee on Banks
EofBEzzIENfENT.
The bin :. s3l defining certain felonies
lembezzements. coming up
On motion by Mr.. NEWCOMB. IL was re
ferrei 70 the judiciary Committee.
DRAINAGE.
The drainage bill :. i04) corning up
On motion q Mr.. HIGGINS, il was refsrre,
to the Committee on swamp Lands
DIVORCE.
The bill :. lOs) amtnding section q tn
divorce law. coming up
ON motion by Mr.. OSBORN, il was referres
90 the judiciary Committee.
The railroad liability bin :. ia eomins
up
IL was referred 10 the Committee on Rail
roads.
The SPEAKER announced the Special Com
mittee on the bills Of the House, Nos. p ant
81, namely, Messrs. Cofiroth. Woods and Col
Iins.
TAX STATEMENT.
The tax statement bill O. iis) coming
II was referred to the Committee ON Way,
and Means.
The bill :. I4l) coming up, on motion by
Mr.. OSBORN, II was referred 10 the Com.
mittee on Corporations,
"
was passed 90 the second reading. The hi
:. IyOJ was referred tn the Committee ON Fee.
and Salaries. The county Lines bill IS. l27,
/ { II puts the boundary between Jackson and
! Lawrence just n the Commissioners have fix.
| ed IT, As Mr.. Brown explained.)
ON motion by Mr.. BOYD, IL was referred 10
the Committee on Rights aud Privileges.
The bill .. Ia, by motion Of Mr.. GROVES,
was referred 10 the Committee on Organization
Of Courts, The bill ;. 1853 was referred to
/ a.. a. rat, he .
2l0) was referred 10 the Committee on the Or
ganization Of Courts Of Justice The bill -.
81 was referred 10 the Committee on the judi
ciary. The bill 6. 80 was referred 10 the
| Committee on Corporations. The bill @. No
| 4O) was referred 10 the Committee on the Judi
| ciary. The bill q. 52) was referred 10 the
Committee on Rights and Privileges. The In
surance bill g. 1897 was referred 10 the Com
mittce on Corporations.
RTFERFES IN DIVORCE.
ON motion by Mr.. NEWCOMB, the regular
order Of business was suspended, and the di-
yorcc bill =. No. l6l was taken up on the second
| reading.
IL was passed TO the third reading.
Mr.. NEWCOMB now moved "a suspension
| Of the constitutional restriction, 10 enable him
% move the third reading Of the bill to-day.
! lie read from the remarks of senator Brown,
| Of Wells, thereon, n In the iiRRNIER REPORTs
Of the last session Of the General Assembly.
Of divorce agencies And from conversation
with members from the northeast part of the
State, ne found these statements fully sus-
| tanned.
MIR. LAsSELLE's first objection to the bill
was that IL strikes down uniformity In plead
ings. That was his main objection. lie knew
! that very wrongful system Of practice had
been gotten up by attorneys in these eases 80
as 10 get them referred and decided by them
selves. IL was not only wrongful but villain
nEfE ms Ia ina mn fFarN mel "A N.fa Ilsi
no doubt prevailed in some parts Of the State.
/ IL was "A disgrace 10 the Courts and the profess
| sion Of the law. But IL seemed To him there
were other and better means Of reaching these
eases by criminal law-thOSe men who regard
Oaths 80 lightly-let them be reached by the
criminal law. lie thought, therefore, there
was no necessity for this bill. There was
| sometimes necessity for referees-where there
Is an honorable Court and honorable attor-
neys-thc reference saves the Judges n great
deal of time and trouble and facilitates bust
| ness. lie would not strike down this princi-
pie Of uniformity In procedures because few
unprincIpled lawyers and Judges abuse II.
Mr.. BCSklsk. Ills friend admits the evil,
but falls 10 suggest any other remedy than the
one proposed in this BILL Until his friend
proposes better. he considered il was best to
pass this bill. This practice of referees in
these cases was unknown in his part of the
state. We ought to put a stop TO this OBJ
tanning divorces by fraud and perjury.
! Mr.. LA>SELLE. Uniformity i the beauty
and boast of the laws and practice of the State
Of Indiana. Ii had worked an immense bene-
lit 10 the State and people. and ii We lose
| sight Of this principle we shall soon get into
confusion and embarrassment from one end OF
the State to the other. lie never heard of the
practice of referring these cases in his dis
trict.
Mr. GREGORY. Of Warren, demanded the
! previous question; and the main question, to-
wit: shall the bill passr was ordered.
Ii was passed by the House Of Represents
tives without amendment-yeas. -; nays l.:
the title: To amend section 3l9 of the Civil
Procedure Act Of June Is, 1852.
Mr.. MILLER explained his vote The bill
was wrong in principle. Its very heading
shows that practice and pleading shall bo uni
form in all our courts. This made exceptions
lie thought il very doubtful whether we could
do this under the Constitution. He voted no
Mr. BURWELL explained. This bill Of the
! senator from Wells-hls county-was gotten
up 10 cure am evil which existed only in tn,
10th Judicial Circuit. This thing of referring
divorce eases 10 attorneys was introduced ana
practiced by judge that the people had got
rid of. And now he did not think there Wa,
any occasion for the passage Of this law.
The passage of the bill was then announced
rs above.
PUBLIC NOTICES.
Mr.. Lasselle's bill III. r. 2all To protect
lawful public notices, Was passed To the thirI
reading, and ordered 10 be engrossed.
Il. X. PASSENGER FARE.
Mr.. Henrick's Passenger Fare Railroad bill
ii. Il. 3D., coming up,
On motion of Mr.. LOCklIART. il was re-
ferred to the Committee on Railroads.
LIQUOR LAW.
Mr.. Shuey's Liquor Law amendment bill III
II. BIS. amending section and {. and provid
ing penalties-cOming up-with a rccommcn
dalton by the Committee on Temperance, I,
H. ftstl ont
moral character"
Mr.. SHUEY stated the Committee recon
mended 10 lay that on the table There wa
an amendment reported. IL was ascertaine,
by reference To the Journal of Monday Inser
after the word petition" this: 4" In the alb
scncc of other substantial proof"
Mr.. RlIOAD> proposed To amend the amend
mcnt Of the Committee by striking out tn
words, at least one half Of the legal voters.
and inserting this: - majority Of the inhabi
tants exceeding fourteen years Of age Their
were some transactions in society in whcl
women were ~ much Interested men. The
suffer more from diSsipated men than the lega
voters in the township or ward; and il seeme'
10 him that they should be- consulted in III
matter of resisting this tide of evil. \ woman
of good ordinary sense has the capacity Of judg
ing i'm this matter; and little boys and girl ar
lust as able 10 decide upon il ~ their father O
any legal voter. lie would therefore requir
that their names be attached 90 the petition.
Mr.. TRl SLER interpoSing how will it b
determined when they get majority.
Mr.. RIIOADS. He would provide for tina
Nv another amendment, 10 this effect The AZ
plicant shall be required 10 make proof that h
has a majority Of all such persons, He did NJ
propose 10 have this determined negatively
but he would put the OHuS prObdRdi upon IN
! applicant. To prove that his petition i signe
10y IA majority Of all the inhabitants over four
teen wears Of age.
Mr.. GRIFFITH was in favor Of the prime
pie Of the amendment. lie submitted whethe
, il would not be- more effective 10 say, "a IN;
jority Of all the inhahltant, over eightee
{. years."
! Mr.. ROACH thought not: bat that fOurtee
years were Notwithstanding just ~ we
what the consequences will be- If they sign. q
forbear 10 sign il. They will readily knoN
: that if groceries are established. their neigl
r bor> and fathers and brothers will De- dragge
down 10 ruin. And in view Of the fact In.
F; they are directly the sufferers. il was EN-
: nently proper that they should be consulted !
&: 10 the license. With such IN amendment "
| would have all the guards We could Obtain b
legislation against this traffic.
5. Mr.. BROWN made the point that the amcas
: ment Of Mr.. Roach l. not in order. because
/ ~. 81 fxxn lime amt hon