IN SENATE
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1865.The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR called to order at 2 o'clock P. M.
On motion of Mr. GIFFORD, the reading of the Secretary's minutes of Saturday's proceedings was dispensed with.
PETITIONSM
Were presented by Messrs. VAWTER and OYLER, praying that liquor sellers shall be required to procure the consent of a majority of voters in the town before license shall be granted, which were referred to the Committee on Temperance without reading.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Were concurred in, recommending the passage of the bill, S. 156, (see page 193 of the BREVIER REPORTS,) and that the bill S. 18, (page 37,) be laid on the table--a similar bill having been ordered engrossed by the Senate.
HOUSE BILLS ON THE FIRST READING
The bills H. R. 89, (see page 119) and 59 (page 83.) were read the first time and passed to the second reading.
WORK FOR COMMITTEES.
House bills numbered 8, (see page 41 of the BREVIER REPORTS (10, (page 75) 122, (page 158) and 160, (page 217) and Senate bills 171 and 172, (introduced yesterday,) were read by title only and referred to appropriate committees.
The bill, H. R. 158 (p. 190,) was read the second time and referred to the Special Committee on Railroad appraisements.
ORDERED ENGROSSED.
The bill H. R. 15, (on page 57 of the Reports erroneously numbered 16,) after being amended, and the bill S. 47 (page 54,) were read the second time and passed to the third reading.
BILLS PASSED.
The following bills were read the third time, and finally passed the Senate except in the cases stated:
Senate bill No. 5 (see p. 17,) incorporating in section 601 of the practice act the words "upon filing an affidavit setting forth facts showing that he had a meritorious cause of action or defense," and adding thereto these words: "The court shall grant but one new trial, unless for good cause shown, as in other cases," was passed by yeas 33, nays 3.
Senate bill No. 20 (see p. 38,) failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority--yeas 23, nays 14.
Senate bill No. 30, (see p. 44 of these Reports) was partially read and laid on the table.
Subsequently, on motion of Mr. DUNNING, it was taken up, the reading thereof finished, and was passed by yeas 29, nays 10.
Senate bill No. 31, (described on p. 44 of the Reports,) was passed by yeas 36, nays 1.
Senate bill No. 34, (see p. 44.) was amended by striking out all limiting its provisions to cities incorporated under the general laws of this State, and passed by yeas 37, nays 0.
Senate bill No. 50, (see page 60 of these Reports,) being nearly an exact copy of the Illinois statute upon that subject, was passed by yeas 32, nays 3.
Senate bill No. 53, (see page 60,) was partially read and laid on the table.
Subsequently, on motion of Mr. CULVER, it was taken up, the reading thereof finished, and it was passed by yeas 37, nays 2.
Senate bill No. 88 (described on page 109 of the BREVIER REPORTS) failed to pass for want of a Constitutional majority--yeas 24, nays 13.
Subsequently, on motion by Mr. BENNETT, the bill was taken up and passed, by yeas 27, nays 12.
Senate bill No. 91, amending section 108 of the Practice Act was read.
Mr. HORD insisted that the bill took an unfair advantage of the criminal, because it provides that the prosecuting attorney shall have the opening and closing of the argument. In some parts of the State the Judges act as Prosecuting Attornies in giving their charge to the jury, thus giving two chances against the criminal to his one. He was satisfied with the law as it is.
Mr. NILES was of the opinion that the change proposed by this bill would bs benefical.
Mr. OYLER concluded that any judge speaking for or against the prisoner at the bar, stains the ermine. He thought the change indicated by the bill was necessary.
Mr. DUNNING. It is the presumption of law that every man is innocent till the contrary is proven. This law was oppressive on the accused. He favored the plan of giving the attorney of the accused the closing of the argument. Old prosecuting attorneys when they get on the bench, will almost always make their charge to the jury an argument against the accused, if not in words the manner tends to a deleterious influence on the cause of the accused. He opposed the bill.
Mr. BONHAM. The law, as it now stands, is, as I believe, a lawyer's act, for the benefit of those who make criminal defense their exclusive profession. The proposed change is seeking no advantage of those who are charged page: 282[View Page 282] with the commission of crime. It is a rule in all discussions that the party upon whom rests the burden of the issue has a right to commence and conclude the argument. This being the fact, I ask why this should be an exception to the general rule, when investigating the conduct of those who are charged with violating the laws of the State? At the present low salary of Prosecuting Attorneys, I regard the man truly unfortunate who aspires to the position, and it is a notorious fact, also, that the ablest lawyers do not prosecute, therefore the prosecutor ought to be placed on an equal footing with the able attorney who is engaged for the defendant.
In this day, when crime stalks broadcast all over this country, it has become next to impossible to convict of any crime. Sir, while we are guarding the interests of those who violate the law, I think it is eminently proper to guard the interests of the people of our noble State.
Mr. MASON opposed the bill.
Mr. DOWNEY two years ago advocated a measure of this kind and he favored it now. The object is to restore the practice which obtained in criminal cases prior to 1852. The State labors under inconveniences enough in such cases without giving the present undue advantages to the criminal. The charge of the judge must necessarily partake somewhat of an answer to the argument last made to the jury--especially if something be improperly said, in the speech of counsel for the defense. If it is desired that the judges charge should not be an argument in favor cf the State, let us return to the rule as it was before the enactment of the present law, then there will be no danger of the judge making an argument against the accused.
If you allow the Prosecuting Attorney to close the case, there would be no danger of the Judge prejudicing the minds of the jury against the accused, whether he be an old prosecutor or not.
Mr. COBB. This bill was investigated by the Judiciary Committee, and they did not agree unadimously upon recommending its passage. There were four members present; two voted for it, one against it, and one remained silent. He believed the passage of the bill would work an evil. He never knew any evil growing out of the present practice. If this bill should pass he would immediately introduce a bill providing that defendants shall be permitted to testify. Were this bill to pass you would see innocent men suffer because the prosecuting attorneys would have an undue advantage.
And then the bill was rejected by yeas 13, nays 26.
Senate bill No. 92 (see page 109,) extending the privileges of city railroads outside of corporation limits, was passed by a vote of yeas 32, nays 2.
Senate bill 52, (see page 60,) was passed by yeas 33 nays 4.
ABSENCE.
Mr. OYLER obtained leave of absence till Thursday next.
Mr. COBB moved to reconsider the vote of yesterday, adopting the resolution (Mr. Bennett's) concerning leaves of absence.
Mr. BENNETT made an ineffectual motion--yeas 14, nays 25--to lay the motion on the table.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas 23, nays 16.
On motion of Mr. COBB, the resolution was laid on the table by yeas 23, nays 16.
BEAUTIFYING THE STREETS.
Leave being granted, Mr. GIFFORD introduced a bill[S. 173] to enable the boards of incorporated towns to authorize the use of portions of streets for shade and ornamental purposes, which was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
SESSION HOURS.
Mr. CASON offered the following:
Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns, that it do so until to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock.
The resolution was adopted by yeas 25, nays 12.
And then the Senate adjourned.
