"GUILTY" PLEADINGS IN VACATION.
Mr. Baker's "guilty" pleadings bill [H. R. 7] coming up with the Judiciary Committee's amendment -
Mr. BAKER. The only change it makes is, that it permits prisoners charged with crime, to go before the Judge and plead "guilty" in vacation, just as they may now do in term time. He showed, its reasonableness, and said that the Judges in the southern part of the State were unanimous, as far as he knew, in advising this legislation. It would work a great saving to many counties.
Mr. PEELLE was in favor of the principle of the bill; but should not the Court be authorized to summon witnesses in aggravation and mitigation?
Mr. BAKER. That is in the bill.
Mr. O'NEIL proposed to amend by adding:
"Provided further, That the punishment affixed by the Judge shall be the maximum punishment fixed by law for the offense."
He sustained his amendment by sundry considerations.
Mr. BAKER replied.
Mr. KISER supported the bill by the consideration of economy.
Mr. VAN VALKENBURG said the amendment would effectually kill the bill. He could see no more facility for bribery or corruption in the hearing proposed by this bill than there is in open court.
Mr. MATTHIS thought the amendment would work badly, and that the bill itself was wrong. The judges, in many cases, would not have the time to attend on its requirements of prisoners.
Mr. SHUEY was totally, absolutely opposed to such innovations of the law. He supposed the case of an influential lawyer fixing up a case for the trial of a criminal pleading guilty in vacation. It admitted of secret arrangements as to what shall be done with a criminal - an arrangement for a lighter punishment than the law determines.
Mr. HUGHES said the bill had not been subjected to a thorough examination in the Judiciary Committee. He himself doubted both its expediency and constitutionality.
Mr. McFADIN explained the committee's action and their amendment. He urged the constitutional provision for a speedy trial freely and without purchase - and that was sought to be met by this bill.
Mr. CRAIN objected, that it was local legislation - legislation for the counties where the judge lives. Where judges are confined all the time to the benchsome twenty, some forty weeks in the year - was the judge to leave the bench for these pleadings, in vacation? It was an unusual regulation, and wrong, for the reason that nothing can be effected by it.
Mr. BAKER answered objections.
Mr. ROSS said it was due to the Judiciary Committee to say, that a large minority were opposed to the bill. The considerations in favor of the bill were its economy. He considered that, and came to the conclusion that economy would be best consulted by hearing all causes in open court. The Circuit Court meets twice a year, and the Common Pleas three times a year,so there could not be much waste of the time of the prisoner - not more than two or three months - before he could come to trial in the regular way. We should not change the law without manifest necessity.
Mr. STAFFORD demanded the previous question, but withdrew for -
Mr. PEELLE, who proposed further to amend the bill, by incorporating the suggestions he had before made.
Mr. BELFORD demanded the previous question, and there was a second, and under its force, Mr. O'Neil's amendment was adopted.
On motion by Mr. MILLER, the bill and pending amendment were laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. McMurray was added to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Chambers obtained leave of absence till next week.
On motion by Mr. HIGGINS, it was
Ordered, That the Committee on State Prison North be allowed to employ a clerk.
On motion by Mr. LITSON, it was
Ordered, That two members be to the Committee on Military Affairs.
The House then adjourned.
