THE TAX DUPLICATE.
Mr. SHOEMAKER'S bill [S. No. 50] coming up he said: A bill passed by the House contains the same ground embraced in this bill, and I have a favorable report from the Finance Committee thereon. I move to lay the bill on the table and ask leave to make report to the Senate.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SHOEMAKER, from the Committee on Finance, then made the following report:
Mr. President - The Committee on Finance, to which was referred House bill No. 48, a bill to amend sections 75, 78, 79, 94, 95, 104, 142 and 163, of an act entitled an act to provide for the valuation and assessment of the real and personal property, and the collection of taxes in the State of Indiana, for the election of Township Assesors, and prescribing the duties of assessors, appriaisers of real property, County Treasurers and Auditors and of the Treasurer and Auditor of State, approved June 21st, 1852, and to repeal an act entitled an act to amend the 143d section of an act entitled an act to provide for the valuation and assessment of the real and personal property and the collection of taxes in the State of Indiana, for the election of Township Assessors and prescribing the duties of assessors, appraisers of real property, County Treasurers and Auditors and of the Treasurer and Auditor of State, approved June 21st, 1852. Approved March 4th, 1859. Have had the same under consideration and have directed me to report the same back and recommend its passage.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to consider the bill as engrossed, and read it the third time now.
Mr. TARKINGTON spoke in opposition to several features in the bill, and moved to strike out the first section thereof.
Mr. WILLIAMS could see no good to result from striking out that section. By allowing it to remain a great expense would be saved, and if there ever was a time when we want to curtail expenses and labor it is now.
Mr. CARNAHAN moved that the bill and pending amendment be laid on the table.
ADVANCE PAY TO VOLUNTEERS.
On motion by Mr. President CRAVENS, [Mr. March in the chair,] the pending business was passed over informally and the joint resolution [H. R. 11,] just reported from the House of Representatives, authorizing advance pay to the three months' volunteers, was read and passed the Senate by yeas 42, nays 0.
THE TAX DUPLICATE AGAIN.
Mr. COBB demanded a division of the question.
Mr. RAY. This bill has passed the ordeal of an examination of competent ex-Auditors. The bill I suppose to be right as it is. I shall therefore vote to lay the amendment on the table.
The Senate refused to lay the bill on the table by yeas 4, nays 34.
The amendment was laid on the table by yeas 30, nays 10.
Mr. TARKINGTON, from an experience of twelve years as a county Auditor, declared the bill produced such a radical change that he should have to vote against it. Why is it that we are not to know how much corporation stock we are taxed with? He moved to amend by striking out that part of the bill which does away with the column in the duplicate wherein to state the value of corporation stock taxed.
Mr. SLACK, with an experience of ten years as county Auditor, also spoke against the provisions of the bill.
On motion by Mr. STUDABAKER, the bill and amendments were referred to a select committee, which the Chair makes to consist of Messrs. Studabaker, Shoemaker, Tarkington, Slack and Williams.
THE STATE LIBRARY.
Mr. March's bill, [S. No. 53,] was read the third time.
Mr. MARCH. The object of this bill is to preserve the law library in particular and the rest of the books in the library especially.
The bill passed the third and last reading in the Senate by yeas 40, nays 0.
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TO ADMINISTER OATHS.
Mr. March's bill, S. N"o. 54, introduced Saturday, coming up, it was read the third time.
Mr. MARCH. The bill has three objects. One is to allow the prosecutor to swear witnesses and take the oath of a party to an affidavit when he makes a charge. Another is when a person is examined before a court, to ascertain whether it is necessary to issue a warrant for the arrest of a criminal if the witness refuses to swear the officer of court or justice of the peace may certify that it is a correct statement, and that shall fill the object of the affidavit.
Mr. MILLER, rather than pass such a bill, would be in favor of striking out of the Common Pleas system all jurisdiction in criminal cases.
Mr. MARCH. For my part I look upon the grand jury as a great humbug, and if there is anything that occupies the position of a star chamber it is a grand jury. It is a secret body, and is a place where more malicious prosecutions are got up than was ever before page: 214[View Page 214] any court. I should be ready to vote for the entire and utter abolition of the grand jury It has been done in many States and they have suffered no evil from it.
Mr. MILLER. The common pleas proscutor has more power than any other judicial officer I know that the people of Indiana, a great many of them, hate, abhor, loathe and despise these common pleas courts, and instead of giving them greater powers I would restrict them. There are not a great many instances where parties refuse to sign their affidavits, and I apprehend in such cases the judge has the power, or at least will exercise it at all events, when the parties refuse, and make them sign it; it might be construed as a contempt of a court perhaps. But if they have no such power I am not in favor of giving it to them.
Mr. DEHART. I have already been called to witness the operations in this star chamber. The law as it now stands, your honor, is this: There are two modes for the procurement of an affidavit for a criminal prosecution. One is that where a district prosecutor is informed of a misdemeanor he makes out summonses and issues them against such persons as are likely to be acquainted with the facts, to come before a court of competent jurisdiction and there he may examine these witnesses in the presence of that court, and if the court deem the testimony sufficient to make out a case of guilty then the court may authorize suit to be instituted. This power is lodged in the hands of the court, where it ought to be lodged. Give them the power to administer oaths and they will be a self-constituted courtyou make this officer a judge and prosecutor at the same time. It is to the interest of the district attorney to procure as many cases as possible. He goes to a defendant and proposes "if you will plead guilty to so many charges I will enter a nolle prosequi in the others." I think this would be going a step too far. The only thing that gives publicity to the proceedings is that witnesses are sworn by the clerk. I would rather see a law compelling every examination to be made public, as far as that is concerned. But to give the power into the hands of the district attorney to summon and swear witnesses, I am opposed to it.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate resumed the consideration of Mr. March's bill, S. No. 54, pending at the time of taking the recess for dinner.
Mr. MARCH. This bill does not increase the power of the star chamber. It does not make this officer any more a spy on the affairs of the public. It provides that when witnesses are summoned before a justice of the peace, or Other court, the prosecutor may swear them. I say the court has not the power to compel a witness to sign his affidavit. But if they have this bill does not alter the law. The argument used is an argument against the common pleas court. They might just as well oppose improving the law of the common pleas court on the ground that they are opposed to the whole thing. I can not suppose a gentleman will be animated by any such principles. As long as that court stands as a part of the judicial system of the State it is right that every facility should be offered for its administration of the law. I am not a particular friend of that court. I believe a better system could be organized cheaper; but as long as such a court exists I am for sustaining it. As to the grand jury I take issue with the gentleman. Any person can go mousing in there and peddle malice against his neighbor, and nobody knows anything about it. It is made use of more as as instrument of oppression than anything else.
Mr. DEHART. The point on which the honorable Senator from Delaware [Mr. March] and the honorable Senator from St. Joseph [Mr. Miller] and myself take issue, is as to the power of the common pleas court to enforce a prosecuting witness to sign an affidavit. I will simply read the statute, page 385 of the second revised, section 3. It reads as follows: [Mr. DeHart read the section entire.] Now, your honor, if that does not create a remedy, then I cannot understand language. But the men who compose these grand juries are men that can judge of facts, and it is seldom they present a case unfounded. It is not the fault of the grand jury that indictments are not sustained. You bring a witness before a court where the testimony is heard and published, and if it is not enough to convict, it disgraces the informant.
Mr. CLAYPOOL. This bill is one I would gladly give my consent to if I could in consonance with my duty. But I am one of those who believe that change, whether in criminal or civil procedure, ought never to be made unless there is a most excellent reason for it. Never, unless there is a most excellent reason for it. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. March] has failed to furnish me any such cogent reason that would authorize me in voting for the amendment proposed by him. I look upon the prosecuting attorney as a useless appendage to the courts of the country, and I would be glad o see the day come in criminal jurisprudence, if this court is not to be abolished, when all indictments should be made in grand jury. I mean that no man shall be presented for a criminal charge except by a jury of his peers. I take it, the changes sought to be made are simply to enlarge and add to the powers of the District Attorney, which, in my opinion, are already too large. I know, in the hands of the purest men in the country, this system might do. But I have known District Attorneys to tell to liquor dealers indulgences, simply to say to the liquor dealer, "you may go on in your nefarious traffic, and I will not indict you, if you will give me $50 a year, or $25." I page: 215[View Page 215] know there was, in the district composed of Fayette, Union and Franklin, an attorney that rarely ever presented a solitary case against a liquor dealer, and yet it, was notorious that he made more money than any other prosecuting attorney in that region. Why? He did it simply by selling himself to these men ; and to put power into the hands of such men, I am perfectly unwilling to do it. Then there is another feature in the bill; and I trust Senators will consider it well before they pass upon it. While it should be the duty of every good citizen to see the laws enforced, there is no citizen, however good his conduct, that may not be brought before his country upon a charge of misdemeanor. He is at all times liable to be presented by some fop of a district attorney. Our system of criminal procedure has all become loose. A man that goes into the common pleas court hardly ever knows whether he is tried upon an affidavit, or upon information, or upon a charge by the prosecuting attorney. This bill, in the hands of many prosecuting attorneys in the State, would be used as an engine of oppression. I am unwilling to see the powers of that prosecutor extended any farther.
Mr. STUDABAKER. I think I have seen the necessity of some legislation in this direction ever since the common pleas system has been in existence. I would go for striking out the whole system of prosecutions in the common plea courts by information.
Mr. DeHART. These witnesses can be sworn as well by a magistrate, or other officer empowered to administer an oath, as before the district attorneys. - Mr. COBB hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. WOLFE hoped the bill would not pass.
The bill was then rejected by yeas 15, nays 20.
WORK ON HIGHWAYS AND OUR VOLUNTEERS.
Mr. March's bill, S. No. 55, coming up in order, it was read the third time.
Mr. MARCH. We have all been talking a good deal about our good feeling for the soldiers in camp, but we have done nothing for them as yet. They get only $11 a month, and as this bill is intended for their benefit, I think it may pass. It exempts those in the actual military service of the State and United States from paying any road tax while in the service; also, members of any organized companies.
The bill finally passed the Senate by yeas 32, nays 5.
TRUST AND SWAMP LAND FUNDS.
The bill H. R. 38 - see pp. 116 and 117 of these Reports - coming up in order, it was read the third time and finally passed by yeas 28, nays 11.
INCORPORATION OF TOWNS.
The bill H. R. 43 coming up, it was read the third time.
Mr. BEESON. The town of Centreville, Wayne county seat, was organized or incorporated under the law of 1852. Their corporate action was taken on one day and the law did not take effect till the next day, or two days after. The town has went on and laid out considerable money in improving the town, and getting fire engines, etc., and some question has arisen as the legality of the levying a tax therefor. This bill is to -
Voices - "Consent," "consent," "consent."
The bill was read the third time, and finally passed, by yeas 37, nays 0.
HOUSE BILLS PUT THROUGH IN QUICK TIME.
On motion by Mr. MELLETT, the rules were suspended - yeas 34, nays 4 - and the House bills numbered as follows were severally read the first and second time, by title only, and referred to appropriate committees:
The bill H. R. 57, to the Committee on Roads and Highways.
The bill H. R. 63, to the Committee on Military Affairs.
The bills H. R. 60 and 54, to the Committee on Finance.
The bills H. R. 28 and 49, to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Northern Prison bill H. R. 64 was read the second time, by title only, and referred to the Committee on the State Prison.
Mr. NEWCOMB, from the Committee on the Judiciary, made the following report:
Mr. President - The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred Senate bill No. 51, have had the same under consideration and have directed me to report the same back, with the following amendments:
1st. Strike out the word "otherwise," in line 5, section 1, and after the word "or," in said line, add these words: "or by affidavit, as in other cases of publication."
2d. Add to section 1 the following proviso: Provided, The suit is of that character that under the laws now in force, notice might be given by publication in a newspaper or an affidavit of non residence of the adverse party. And when the bill is so amended the committee recommend its passage.
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, the bill was considered as engrossed, and read the third time.
The question being, shall the bill pass? the yeas and nays were taker, but no quorum voting -
The Senate adjourned.
