THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
Re-organization of the Judicial System.---Debate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, February 21, 1873.[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 195, MIDDLE OF FIRST COLUMN.
Pending the roll call on the passage of the Joint Committee's bill [S. 238] for an act redistricting the State for Judicial purposes to abolish the Court of Common Pleas, etc., -
Mr. BIRD, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: I wish to say this: I understand that this bill proposes to abolish the Common Pleas Courts in this State. It seems to me this is rather an untimely measure, and has not been as well matured as it ought to be. I am not prepared to vote for this bill and will have to vote against it. I vote "no."
Mr. BOONE, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said. I am not in favor of this bill at all. There are several reasons why I shall vote against it. One is that it proposes to abolish a court that has been in operation in this State for over twenty years. The satisfaction it gave depended upon the character of the judge that held the office. In the districts where they have good judges the courts are good and where the judges are poor the courts are inferior. In some circuits the circuit judges have had to be removed, but I do not know of any case in which a Common Pleas judge has been removed. Now it is argued that we will get a better class of judges for having them all circuit. That may be the opinion of gentlemen who reside where they have a good circuit and a poor common pleas judge; but it is not so plausable to a man who lives in a district where there is a fine common Pleas judge and a poor circuit judge. Another reason why I cannot vote for thia bill is that if you abolish this court I do not know what you will put in the place of it. And another objection is that it requires versatility of talent for a man to perform the duties required of him under this bill than if the business were divided. I vote "no."
Mr. COLLETT, in explanation of hia vote, when his name was called said: I vote against this bill for several reasons, we have good courts of Common Pleas and good Circuit judges in our district, and we don't care about bettering them. But I protest most earnestly against being compelled to have eight sittings of the same court in Vermillion and Parke counties as I understand the reading of the bill by the clerk. I vote "no."
Mr. DAGGY, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: That a good many provisions in this bill would be good I have no doubt, but I have a suspicion that we will leave a great many matters without any jurisdiction whatever. I don't think the bill meets the purposes intended. I vote "no."
Mr. DAUGHERTY, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: It page: 535[View Page 535] seems to me we are proposing to make most too radical a change. I don't know of a State that does their legal business in one court. Not being satisfactorily posted I think it safest to vote against the bill. I vote "no."
Mr. GOODING, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: It is universally conceded that the labors of the different judges of the State are unequally divided at the present time, and that we need a redistricting of the State for Court purposes. That is conceeded on all hands, and I think this bill meets that point. We have endeavored to get it up as equally as we know how. Unless this bill passes, I believe there will be no general redistricting of the State and I am satisfied unless there is a general redistricting there will be no raising of the salaries of the judges. Then our Common Pleas Judges will not get any more than they are receiving now, and a number of our best Circuit Judges will send in their resignations as soon as this Legislature adjourns. Many of them were only induced to take the bench with the idea of increased salaries. For one I shall vote for an increase of salaries whether this bill passes or not. One reason why I am in favor of the passage of this bill is that it divides the labor pretty nearly equal among the judges, increases their alaries and thereby retains on the bench good men. I say by the passage of this bill we will prevent the resignation of a number of the best judges on the bench. There are other reasons why I am in favor of the bill but as my time is about up, I will vote "aye."
Mr. GREGG, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: Our common pleas judge is one of the finest judges in the State, and I know if the salary is not increased that he will not remain on the bench. I believe he will find his way on Circuit bench where his talents will we used for the good of the State. I think if we don't pass this bill the Legislature will adjourn without increasing the Common Pleas judges salaries, therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. HOUGH, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said : I doubt exceedingly the principle involved in this bill, and I have reasons why I shall vote against it aside from that. The Common Pleas Court has been in existence twenty years and until recently we have heard no. objections to it. It will be necessary if that court be abolished that something should take the place of it. In five years or probably three years, we will not be without another court with jurisdiction inferior to that of the Circuit court. Why not continue the Common Pleas, modify the jurisdiction of the Court and equalize the labors of the judges. We can do that and still call it a court of Common Pleas as well as anything else. This bill has been thrown out for our votes without giving members an opportunity to perfect it. It will reduce the time in my county from fourteen to eight weeks, and with the present amount of time we are unable to transact the business without additional special terms ; and it will be nothing but an outrage upon the people of my county if this bill passes ; and I cannot sit quietly by and see it done without rebuking it. I think the Senate ought to have too high a regard for any portion of the State, than to willfully do anything of that kind. There is another provision which ought to be added to remove a difficulty like thin: our present circuit judge was elected judge of the seventh Judicial Circuit; by this bill his district would be the eighteenth: now can he be elected judge of the seventh, perform the duties of the judge of the eighteenth without a provision in this bill making him judge of the circuit he now resides in ?
Mr. GLESSNER (interposing.) There is that sort of a provision in the bill.
Mr. HOUGH (continuing.) For the reasons I have given, I could not without insulting my constituents vote for this bill, and I think if the Senate shall pass this bill it will be inflicting an outrage upon my people. I vote "no."
Mr. HUBBARD, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I shall vote for this bill because I believe it to be a step in the right direction. Little by little the jurisdiction of the Common Pleas Court has crept up until it has become a court of almost concurrent jurisdiction with the Circuit Court; and, substantially, this bill makes the Circuit Court, what the Common Pleas Court is in this State; and requiring for a judge a person of that versability of talent necessary to try breach of promises for marriage, libel and slander suits. These are the only new matters thrown into the Circuit Court under this bill. I have been somewhat anxious about this bill, as perhaps some Senators understand. In the northern part of the State there are large circuits and smaller Common Pleas districts. In my own county with five terms of the court we are no better off than we would be with three, for the reason that one immediately follows or preceeds the other in every case, filling the dockets of one term and leaving the preceeding one comparatively empty. It rights itself in time, but results in continuance.
As far as the redistricting question is concerned, it seems to me the Senate has done as much with this bill as with any considered this session. It has lain in a painted form on the table of senators for weeks. It was sent to a committee of thirteen - one from each Congressional District - with the object page: 536[View Page 536] of reconciling differences by having on the committee one representative from each district; and if senators sit quietly in their seats I and only fine out on the third reading that It outrages their constituents, the fault is with them not with those who vote for this bill, I vote "aye."
Mr. SCOTT, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I vote "no." I listened carefully to the reading of this engrossed bill and my county is in two circuits; it is in a circuit by itself, with which I would be content. If that were all I would vote for the bill at once, but it is in a circuit also with Sullivan county. That being the case it seems to me I ought not to vote for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Brown in the chair.] The bill has not been actually engrossed at all. The Senator from St. Joseph [Mr. Hubbard] moved to consider the bill as engrossed; and one clerk has been reading from one bill and another from another, and that is the cause of the trouble the clerks have had in reading; and so it is that the Senator heard what he did.
Mr. SCOTT. I have no censure for the clerks, but as I understand that Sullivan and Vigo counties are together in one district, of course I am opposed to that and I vote "no," otherwise I would vote "aye."
Mr. SLATER, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I do not think this bill will accomplish the result desired, and if left to my personal inclanation I should vote against the bill but my constituents are unanimously in favor of the bill and therefore vote "aye."
Mr. SLEETH, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I could not vote for the bill, even if I was personally disposed to do so because I am instructed by every lawyer of the county of Rush, except one, [the Lieutenant Governor,] and every member of the bar of Decatur county, to vote against the bill. One reason why I vote against the bill is this: The counties of Rush and Decatur have been together for many years - twelve or fifteen years - for judicial purposes, they have been in the same Common Pleas district, the same Senatorial district, the same Legislative district and the game Congressional district. This bill proposes to take Decatur from this district and put it with the county of Franklin, with which it has nothing in common. Franklin and Decatur have nothing whatever in common, and they never have had.
Another reason for my opposition to the bill is that it does not equalize the labor of the judges. In the district assigned to us the Judge will only be required to sit about twenty-two weeks out ot the fifty-two in the year; Now the friends of this bill say one of the most important features is to equalize the labor of the districts. That is redistricting with avengence, when a judge paid for fifty-two weeks labor is only called upon to sit twenty-two weeks. In the counties of Rush, Fayette and Union, the entire time occupied at present by the Common Pleas and district courts only amounts to twenty-two weeks, while upon the other hand by this bill Dearborn county is taken from Franklin county and Decatur is added on to Franklin county. Now the average population of a district throughout the State is nine thousand nine hundred and seventy. That is the average population for a judicial district. This district is made up for the accommodation of some one, I presume, for certainly it is not made up upon the principles of reason.
The new circuit composed of Dearborn and Ohio, has a voting population of six thousand six hundred and sixty-one, while the average circuit, as constituted by the bill, has a voting population of nine thousand nine hundred and seventy. Some districts, under this bill, run as low as five thousand in population - this bill that is to equalize the population, while others run up to fifteen thousand. Some have three times the population that others have. I submit that is not redistricting. Another reason why I am compelled to vote against this bill is it provides for thirty-eight circuit judges. It is admitted by all parties that this is a step in the right direction, and is to be follow by some other step as a substitute for the present Common Pleas courts to take the Probate business from the hands of the circuit court. If they take away a part of the labor that is now entrusted to Circuit courts then the number of the Circuit courts should be diminished. But Senators will reccollect that the Legislature has no power under the Constitution, to legislate out of office a Circuit Judge. The number that we fix to-day we have no power to legislate out of office, so that when we come to establish the other court that is proposed to be established and divide the labor between the Circuit Judges and the county Surrogates, we will be in the same condition that we are now: We shall have too many judges and we will find it will be the most expensive system we have ever had in the State. For these and other reasons I have not time to give. I vote against the bill. I vote "no."
Mr. SMITH, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: I am ready to vote for a bill just in its provisions but I insist that a court which has stood for twenty years should not be ruthlessly thrown aside without getting a better system to take the place of it. I vote "no."
Mr. STEELE, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said: This bill would create thirty-seven circuits, and it is page: 537[View Page 537] proposed to pay the judges three thousand dollars each, which will amount to one hundred and eleven thousand dollars a year. That is one step to be taken in the way of reform. In addition to that one step the next step will be to form something like a Surrogate system, with a Surrogate for each county at about one thousand dollars a year, which will be ninety-two thousand dollars more making two hundred and three thousand dollars a year for the Judicary. The present Circuit Judges cost fifty-three thousand dollars, and Common Pleas Judges thirty-three thousand dollars or eighty-six thousand dollars in all. It is proposed now to have thirty-seven judges and give them one hundred and eleven thousand dollars a year. This is what is called reform. Take the eighty-six thousand dollars you are now paying your circuit and Common Pleas Judges and you have twenty-five thousand dollars from the one hundred and eleven thousand dollars that the circuit judges you are creating will receive. Gentlemen say they are only taking the initial step but before we take that step - before we involve ourselves with thirty-seven Judges I want to know what is back. I vote "no."
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was tolled; in explanation of his vote, said: The old lawyers of our county generally favor this bill while the young lawyers I think a great many of them are opposed to it. I suppose I ought to bow to the judgment of old age so I shall vote for the bill "aye."
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said : I have very little personal knowledge with regard to the merits of this bill having been fortunate enough never to have to enter a Court House in the State of Indiana. In my district I don't know of a single legal gentleman who is in favor of the passage of this bill, while on the contrary my desk is full of letters protesting against its passage. I am satisfied there is no one in my portion of the State that favors it. I know both courts in Laporte county are not able to clear their dockets and old practitioners in that county are protesting against the passage of this bill. I trust it will not become a law. Mr. President I vote "no."
When the roll call was finished.-
The PRESIDING OFFICER announced the vote as above recorded on page 195 yeas 26, nays 20.
So the bill [S. 238] for an act to redistrict the State for Judicial purposes to abolish the court of Common Pleas etc., was passed the Senate.
