BENTON COUNTY CLAIM.
Mr. CARR, of White's, bill [H. R. 81--see page 90] to make an appropriation to pay Benton County, Indiana, a portion of the extraordinary expenses incurred in the arrest, trial and conviction of Charles L. McCullough for the murder of William Morgan, of Grant County, Indiana, was read the third time.
Mr. CARR felt satisfied that the gentlemen who opposed this measure several weeks ago did not fully understand its object or they would not have opposed the bill. He felt sure the claim was an honest and just one. The parties not being residents of the County in which the heavy expense was incurred, Benton County should not be made liable for a prosecution which did not concern the County.
Mr. BUSKIRK was opposed on general principles to allowances of such claims, or making appropriations of this sort, but he was willing to vote for is appropriation principally upon the ground that the people of Benton County acted upon the promise made by the State officers. These officers had a right to make this promise, as there is a contingent fund provided for that purpose, and they have a right to dispose of that as they think proper.
Mr. THOMPSON said the Claims Committee concluded they would submit the claim to the action of the House. There was some merit in the claim.
Mr. FANCHER said the claim was quite old; that it was presented to previous Legislatures. The Governor encouraged the Prosecuting Attorney of Benton County to proceed. The Attorney did so, and it would be nothing more than right that the County at least be reimbursed for the extraordinary expenses -- that is, the amount actually paid out. He said the Governor would never have suggsted its payment by the State had he not thought it an equitable claim.
Mr. MITCHELL believed the claim should be allowed by this body, for the reason that Benton County is poor and can not well bear this expense. He did not approve of the principle of allowing such claims, but in consideration of the County's financial condition, he thought the amount should be allowed as a matter of benevolence and charity.
Mr. CARTER--From the fact that the State officers encouraged this prosecution and promised to defray these expenses, under those circumstances I shall support this bill. I hope it will pass as a simple act of justice to the County.
Mr GIBSON said he favored the passage of the bill because he thought it a just one, and the Governor encouraged the prosecution with promises of compensation, notwithstanding the fact that he [Mr. Gibson] introduced a similar bill in this body which was rejected.
Mr. FRAZER--I am opposed to this bill. That the Prosecuting Attorney received encouragement from the Governor of State amounts to nothing, as it was a sworn duty of the Prosecuting Attorney to prosecute every crime committed in the County. The Judge is also bound to try every cause in that County. It is the duty of every County, irrespective of its worth or poverty, to prosecute every crime committed in it, and I doubt not that every County in the State has prosecuted similar claims. If we pay this claim we must pay every similar claim in Indiana. The principle of this thing is wrong.
Mr. MITCHELL said the amount asked for was not the actual expense of this trial, but simply the amount actually expended for witnesses--money paid out. Under these circumstances he could see no impropriety in the State officials guaranteeing to the County the actual expenses.
Mr. CARR--The expense of the prosecution is over $2,000. The extraordinary expense--that is, the money paid to witnesses and outside expenses. I ask no sympathy or generosity, but simply justice. I hope the bill will pass as a matter of justice.
The bill passed--yeas, 56; nays, 31.
