AFTERNOON SESSION.
The following described bills were introduced and read the first time:
By Mr. CABBAGE [H. R. 417]: To encorage the destruction of owls and hawks and other mischievous birds that prey on poultry.
Mr. CABBAGE said the destruction of such animals would make a saving to the State of a great deal of money. He called the attention of the House to the fact that along rivers and creeks where these destructive animals are increasing it is almost impossible to protect these domestic animals.
By Mr. GARDNER [H. R. 418]: To amend Section 54 of an act to repeal all general laws now in force for the incorporation of cities, etc. [Regulating the place where intoxicating liquors are sold, giving Common Council jurisdiction two miles beyond the city limits.]
By Mr. GARDNER [H. R. 419]: To prohibit the taking or receiving within the State applications for life insurance policies on the Tontine plan, and prescribing penalties therefor.
LOCAL OPTION.
Mr. GILMAN offered a resolution that that Committee on Temperance be instructed to report a bill to this House for its consideration, granting local option in the sale of intoxicating liquors.
THE STATE'S PRISONS.
Mr. WILSON of Montgomery, from the Committee on Prisons, reported to the House the oondition, management, etc.. of the Prisons North and S
The report was concurred in.
THE CRIMINAL CODE.
On motion by Mr. NEFF, the House proceeded to the consideration of the bill [H. R. 367] relating to criminal proceedings.
Mr. CARTER moved to amend Section 71 of the bill by striking out all after the word "and" [in the clause "and whenever any person has been convicted before the Mayor, Police Judge or Judge, etc.,"] and inserting the following: "All ordinances of any city which seek to punish an act already punishable, under a statute law fully covering the same, shall be void as in excess of the power conferred upon cities." He said the objectionable feature of that section was the confliction of city and State laws. He could see no reason why a city should have a law to punish assault and battery when the State has the same law.
Mr. NEFF said that matter was fully provided for in another section.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. WALZ moved to strike out the word "twelve" in Section 79 [referring to the number of Grand Jurymen], and insert the word "six."
Mr. RYAN hoped the amendment would not prevail. He thought a good Jury of twelve men safer than one of six; besides twelve men could dispose of the business much more rapidly.
Mr. MITCHELL wanted the amendment to pass upon the ground that it would dispatch business.
Mr. TETER said it appeared to him the Grand Jury ought to be a legal sieve, and twelve men, accordingr to his idea, constituted a better sieve than a smaller number, therefore he opposed this amendment.
Mr. WALZ thought the people were very well satisfied with the number six, as there has been no bill introduced to abolish the number and substitute twelve therefor.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. EDWINS moved to strike out all of Section 79. He favored disposing of the entire Grand Jury system. In different Counties of the State men are driven from their homes, some perhaps with not ten dollars in their pockets, and are kept away for weeks, and do not receive a dollar from the State.
Mr. NEFF--I hope the amendment will not be adopted. The Constitution of the State says that page: 226[View Page 226] the Grand Jury system of the State may be abolished, but I hope the gentlemen of this House will stand by it.
Mr. BUSKIRK was opposed to the Grand Jury system, but there was a rule of law that when a thing is changed you have to show a better way. If the gentlemen are prepared to say they have a better system than the Grand Jury system, he would vote for the amendment. He did not believe in varying from an old, established institution unless a better one could be substituted.
On motion by Mr. THOMPSON, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. HINTON made an ineffectual effort to amend Section 79, to make the number of Grand Jurymen nine instead of twelve.
Mr. KAIN moved to amend Section 80 [in regard to exemptions from serving on a Grand Jury] by inserting after the word "services" in line 5 these words: "Or ministers of the Gospel."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. MARSHALL moved to amend the same section by inserting the words "or physicians."
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WALKER moved to amend Section 80 by etriking out the words "ten dollars" [amount of penalty when failing to appear upon summons] and inserting in lieu thereof the words "five dollars."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. SKINNER moved to amend Section 89 (giving the causes for which a man may be challenged to serve on a Grand Jury) by adding the words "That he is in the habit of becoming intoxicated."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. STEWART offered an amendment allowing the Prosecuting Attorney to be present at the sittings of the Grand Jury. As the law is now, the Prosecutor can not be present. He thought it bad that the Prosecutor has to leave whenever the Jurymen want to express an opinion. He being a sworn officer, ought to be present.
Mr. WALZ moved to strike out the word "nine" (the number that must concur in making a verdict) in Section 104 and insert the word "twelve" in lieu.
Mr. WALZ said there was an important question before the House yesterday, in regard to the number required to make a verdict. He thought it should require the unanimous vote of the Grand Jury to make a verdict; that if the principle held good in one case it would in another.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. THOMPSON moved to amend Section 108 [referring to the dismissal of information except order of the Court] by adding the following words: "And the number of indictments shall not because for non prossing said indictments."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. CARTER moved to amend Section 116 [upon the subject of sssuing warrants] by striking out the lines five, six and seven of said section and insert these words: "When a warrant is issued the Clerk must at the same time issue a summons for the witness."
Mr. CAUTHORNE moved to amend the amendment by inserting after the word "witness" in line 7, the following; "But the officer shall not serve the summons on the witness until the warrant has been executed."
The amendment to the amendment and the amendment were adopted.
Mr. WALKER moved to amend Section 148--concerning recognizances and the binding of their real estate--by inserting after the word "recognizer," in line 9, the following words: "In the County where the recognizance is entered into."
Mr. KENNER moved to amend the amendment as follows: Strike out of Section 148 the following in line 8: "Such recognizance shall bind the real estate of all the recognizers from the time of their signing or entering the same."
Mr. KENNER said it is well known when a man goes on a bond every foot of his real estate is incumbered. Sometimes this recognizance last for a long time. He would hesitate to go on a man's bond on that account, and thought it ought to be stricken out.
Mr. BUSKIRK said he was half way in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Huntington (Mr. Kenner), but thought it too radical; if it should be adopted there would be no provision in the bill for the attaching of the lien prior to the commencement of the action on the recognizance, or, perhaps, until judgment is taken. The lien ought to attach sooner than this, not later than the judgment of foreclosure. In its present shape he was opposed to this amendment, but was in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Martin (Mr. Walker).
Mr. WALKER said the object of his was to effect real estate in Counties, in which recognizances are taken only.
Mr. RYAN was of opinion that criminals have chance enough now to escape penalties and punishment without giving them this advantage. If this amendment passed, recognizances would not be worth the paper they are written on. He said this section did not impose any hardship except upon that class of criminals for which it was intended, therefore he favored its adoption.
Mr. BERRYMAN--This amendment ought not to prevail. Parties who are purchasing real estate and taking mortgages upon real estate could not, if a law of this kind existed, take a mortgage or make a transfer of property. A provision of that kind is unfair. If that amendment prevails, it would become dangerous for a man to buy property or accept a mortgage upon property.
Mr. BENHAM thought it unwise to enact a law that as soon as a man signs a bond it should be binding on the real estate for the full amount of the bond. A short time after going bond for some one you might want to sell some of your real estate and could not because of the incumbrance upon it, and he hoped the amendment will not prevail.
The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The amendment was agreed to.
The House adjourned till to-morrow.
