REORGANIZATION OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
The PRESIDENT announced the special order for this hour, viz:
Mr. Oyler's bills [S. 80] for the organization of Circuit Courts in this State, and [S. 81] abolishing Courts of Common Pleas, And County Commissioners' Courts - transferring the civil and criminal business of the Common Pleas to the Criminal Court, and establishing a County Court for the transaction of other legal business - the question being on Mr. Cason's motion to recommit the bills to the Committee on the Organization of Courts of Justice, with instructions to report a substitute providing for County Circuit Courts.
Mr. CASON. The proposed substitute would leave the Criminal Courts as they now stand in the larger cities; and have a County Court in session every day in the year, except during two or three of the hot months. The advantage lies in this, that cases would be disposed of at once and deliberately - doing away with the hurry and confusion usually attending our courts as now organized. It is too late in the session now to make a thorough reorganization of the Judicial system. The bill 81 is very faulty - imperfect in almost every particular. He read therefrom to substantiate this statement. He also read from the bill 80, pointing out objections. These bills would not give satisfaction to the great majority of the people, for they would in effect revive the old common pleas system that obtained in this State many years ago.
Mr. OYLER was sorry the Senator was in such a fault-finding humor this morning. The plea that the session is too far advanced for the perfection of these bills is the same objection that has been raised here every session for the past three years. Admitting their imperfections, they far transcend the present arrangement, and it is the duty of Senators to assist in perfecting them as far as they can. The Senator agrees that some change should be made, and why not go to work with a view to building up a system on the foundation proposed by these bills? He read numerous provisions of the bills, which, he insisted, commended themselves very strongly to he favorable consideration of members. Call it the old probate system, if you will; that system was far superior to the present Probate Court, which has proved itself a most lamentable failure.
Mr. CUMBACK. I favor the motion of the Senator from Boone for the reason that I do not think the bills before the Senate reach the evils sought to be remedied. These bills provide for twenty-eight circuit courts, and by another bill before the Senate these courts are to sit but three times each year. This only partially cures the ills connected with our present mode of judicial proceedings. I hope the motion to recommit will prevail and that the Committee will at once, and with their well known energy and ability, address themselves to the work of preparing and reporting to us a bill establishing a circuit court for each county in the State or let that court be in session all the time and have jurisdiction of every possible sort of case that can now come before any of our inferior courts. This is the only way to cure the giant evils connected with our present system. It will be far more economical than our present plan. The jail fees that we are compelled to pay each year for the support of persons charged with crime, who can not give bail, and are kept for months in our county jails waiting the meeting of the court, would, in my judgment, in most cases, pay the salary of the judge for the county; and when you add to the jail fees each county's share of the expense of the Circuit Court, and that of the Common Pleas, page: 204[View Page 204] and the expense of the Commissioners' Court, you will find that a Circuit Court in each county will be much cheaper than our present system. It will be incalculably cheaper for litigants. As it is now, a case on the docket is expected to be tried at each term of the Court - a host of witnesses are in attendance for days and weeks until such an enormous bill of cost is piled up by the delay that, what at the beginning, was a dignified contest about the rights of the parties becomes a disgraceful squabble about who shall pay the costs, and perjury is called to aid unprincipled men in saving themselves from being crushed by the weight of cost bills. Again under our present mode of trials in our Courts there is so much haste in order to dispose of the business before the Court that cases are not fairly and fully tried when trials are had, and the Court fails to accomplish the purpose for which it was intended. I know also it often happens that charges are maliciously preferred against parties and they are thrown into jail where there is not a shadow of a case against them, and they lay in prison being unable to give bail for five or six months, or until the Grand Jury meet, who find that there is nothing in the accusation, and they are then released. This is a great wrong to that class of persons and a great outrage upon the people who have been taxed to support them. A Court in session all the time in each county would cure all these evils and we might as well now as at any future time look the evils of our present system square in the face, and provide a remedy for them. "We will have it to do, and let us do it at once. If we adopt the measures proposed by the Senator from Johnson, we will have to change it again at the next meeting of the General Assembly. Let us strike at the root of the evil, and adopt no half way measures. I trust that the motion of the Senator from Boone will prevail, and the able Committee on the Organization of Courts will give us such a bill as I have indicated.
I would not have asked the indulgence of the Senate but for the great interest I feel in this measure.
Mr. CULLEN believed with others, that there was a radical defect in the judicial system of Indiana, which imperatively demands a remedy at the hands of this Legislature. This being the general impression, the question now is: Do these bills tend to remedy the evils? He objected to the expense the system proposed by these bills would necessarily incur; it would cost infinitely more than it was worth, as he proceeded to show. He gave credit to the author for untiring industry, and for fairness, as far as the working part was concerned; but the great expense was the particular objection. He favored the motion to recommit, as he desired to perfect the bills by providing for but one court in each county.
Mr. CARSON thought the proposition to establish a court in each county was well worthy of careful consideration, and suggested in this connection a revision of the practice act concerning the making up of issues in vacation.
Mr. RICE was not in favor of tampering with our present judicial system, though admitting many defects in it. The people had become used to it, and it was a matter of much doubt whether the proposed changes would lessen the expense. It would take the people long years before any new system could be perfected, and feeling that there was no necessity for a change, as a matter of policy and principle, he would have to vote against the bills and all propositions to amend.
Mr. CASON. The older attorneys, who have been in the habit all their lives of following the circuit, are, as a general thing, opposed to changing the present system, but the younger members of the bar, and some of the older heads, can see the many advantages that would accrue by the plan proposed in his motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. BROWN was of opinion the judicial system of our State could not be much bettered; and if any attempt to do so is made it would undoubtedly increase the expense. A judge made the remark the other day, that $3,000 a year could be made out of the Judgship of the proposed County Court. He was satisfied no bill of this kind could be presented here that would claim his vote. No objection has been forwarded hereno petitions for change-and he should vote against any proposition for a re-organization of the judicial system.
Mr. STEIN should vote against the bill S. 81 and also against the proposition to re-commit. Our present court system has been running in this State for sixteen years, and as the lawyers are satisfied with it it follows that the people are. Should we not look to the practice act and amend that by way of finding a remedy for some of the evils at present experienced. He agreed with the remarks of the Senator from Allen, (Mr. Carson,) on this point.
Mr. OYLER could have wished for a more general discussion of this question, for in the discussion Senators answer each other's objections. He did not think these bills had been fairly dealt with. Senators forget that in every county a court is abolished by these bills, (the County Commsioners' Court) which expense in itself would pay half of the cost of the county court proposed. It will not increase the page: 205[View Page 205] number of courts and will expedite every class of legal business, thereby diminishing the immense bills of cost now occasioned by the delay in trying causes. The system proposed by these bills would cost $100,000 less than the present system; but he dispaired of the bills receiving a majority of votes here.
Mr. HANNA opposed re-commitment, for he believed the tide was against re-organization, and we might as well clear the calendar of these bills at once.
Mr. CARSON moved to indefinitely postpone the further consideration of this subject.
Mr. OYLER made an ineffectual motion - yeas 14, nays 24 - to lay the motion to postpone on the table.
The motion to indefinitely postpone the bill was rejected by yeas 18, nays 19 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Barker, Bowman, Brown, Carson, English, Gifford, Hanna, Huey, Huffman, Humphreys, Johnson, Newlin, Sherrod, Smith, Staggs, Stein, Taggart, and Ward - 18.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Bonham, Cason, Church, Cravens, Cullen, Houghton, Hyatt, Lewis, Milligan, Noyes, Oyler, Reagan, Reynolds, Rice, Robinson, Terry, Thompson, and Mr. President -19.
The motion to recommit was rejected yeas, 12; nays, 24.
Mr. CULLEN moved that the bill S. 80 be considered as engrossed and read the third time.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. OYLER was satisfied these bills could not pass, and in order to save the clerk the labor of reading them he moved to lay them on the table.
The motion was agreed to without a division.
