AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. WILSON, of Montgomery, said: I represent a County which has already voted aid to railroad constructions of $350,000, and about four weeks since in Union Township there was voted a tax of $26,000 to aid a raiload, and still I think I represent my constituents when I oppose the repeal of this law, because I believe popularity is a better and stronger evidence than the Democratic platform. I hope the report of the Committee will be adopted.
Mr. TETER said the people of this country are capable of governing themselves, let them be Democrats, Republicans or Greenbackers. It that be true, why is it that we are afraid to trust the people to vote upon any and all matters in which they have an interest? In the County of Clay there are now four railroads, where ten years ago there was only one. If the priviledge did not exist we would be where we were many years ago--plodding through the mud. So far as page: 135[View Page 135] I am concerned and know the wishes of my constitutents, they still want that law upon the statute books. We are not forced to aid railroad corporations. We can control ourselves, and I think we can trust ourselves yet to vote. Whilst I believe in the doctrine laid down, yet I do not believe in the doctrine--Vox Populi, Vox Dei--that the voice of the people is the voice of God. I say, let this law remain upon the statute books until you find that they have abused it, then I would be in favor of a remedy.
Mr. RYAN said it was not the desire of his people to have this law repealed. He thought, notwithstanding the fact that the Railroad Companies have grown rich and increased the value of land more than 50 per cent. in the State of Indiana, this thing of corporations becoming rich is a thing which can not be avoided or controlled by the Legislature. There is no possibility of preventing the accumulation of money or accumulation of riches by the use or investment of money so long as money continues to be one of the commodities of the country, and the idea that it carries with itself value is no reason why the people should deprive themselves of the benefits that come to them by the operations of these corporations. He was opposed to the repeal of this law.
Mr. FLOYD said: I am in favor of gravel roads, because they are progressive in their nature, and I am favor of railroads, because they largely increase the wealth of the State. The principle that underlies popular government is that the voice of the people in this land of ours is the voice of the sovereign. Local option, I say, upon gravel roads; local option upon railroads, and local option on temperance, or any other question, are my sentiments.
Mr. HAMILTON said about twelve years ago that law was placed upon the statute books, and by virtue of it the State has increased in power and value. Many Counties at that time had no railroads, and since that they have been enabled to help themselves, and they have doubled their wealth. Suppose that the aid had not been extended by virtue of this act? The chances would be that we would have no more railroads now than we had fourteen years ago, and instead of having a market, we would have to convey our produce to other points by wagon. The gentlemen who are here opposing this measure, if they do not want to build railroads do not need to do so, but let the law remain, so that Counties that do want to vote aid can have the privilege.
The report was concurred in.
So the bill was indefinitely postponed.
THE JURY SYSTEM.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, Mr. Linsday's bill [H. R. 114--see page 219, vol. 19, of these Reports] providing for trial by Jury and fixing the number that can make a verdict.
Mr. LINSDAY said: I want the members of this House to understand that I am decidedly in favor of Jury trial, and a Jury of twelve, if they can be had. I do not think that the members of this House generally understand this bill. It provides for twelve Jurors, but as I said the other day I apprehend there is no man to be found in the State of Indiana wise enough to give the reason why the number "twelve" was agreed upon. I can not tell why. It never was founded on reason; still I do not war against the principle, but this idea of unanimity had no foundation in reason; then had it ought to be perpetuated? What was the reason of this unanimity? Was it because the facts would be decided or the evidence more overwhelming? I do not think I would be far from the fact by saying that it was founded on barbarism. Juries were compelled to make verdicts unanimously, and if a Juryman did not agree with the rest, he was locked up and given neither eat or drink or fire or anything else, and kept there. Whether the minority yielded to the majority or the majority to the minority or not, that would make no difference; but where is the reason for it, and why should we as intelligent men hang on to it? The bill provides that there may be twelve on the Jury, and that a verdict may be brought in by nine of the twelve, a Jury of nine may be agreed upon, and in that case seven may be a sufficient number to constitute a verdict after three hours' deliberation. It has been intimated by some gentlemen that this bill would be unconstitutional. I say to you, as I said the other day, I have no doubt upon that subject; I believe it is a constitutional act, and would be constitutional, but I find Judges and lawyers divide upon tis subject. I do not know except we pass the bill and leave it with the Court to decide whether it is or is not constitutional.
Mr. TETER said there are objections urged to this bill. I learned long ago that the greater the benefit which naturally results from anything the more pernicious are its effects when diverted from its proper course. The objection, therefore, which the gentleman makes to the unanimity of a Jury is its highest eulogium. He says why should we have the number twelve? All that I need to say upon that point is simply this: The number twelve was adopted a long time ago, and it has been used for hundreds of years. The system has worked well for a long time, then why change it? The gentleman says that upon the right of trial by jury depend the liberties of the people of this country. Then I ask methodically why this invasion, unless we can show that the work of it has been harmful?
Mr. MITCHELL was in favor of the bill. He said the trial by Jury remains inviolate. There shall be twelve men to render decision, if they can be had, and this bill provides that a verdict can be brought in by nine out of the twelve. He did not apprehend any danger by reducing the nnmber making a verdict.
Mr. GILMAN thought the paramount question should be, How can justice be the nearest obtained. He could see no injustice in a law allowing nine out of twelve to bring in a verdict, and considered it at least more economical. He wanted the bill to pass.
Mr. JOHNSON said when this bill first come up I was opposed to it, and when it was put upon its passage I voted against it, but since that I have come to the conclusion, upon the arguments of a number of lawyers in its behalf, that it is a good measure and I hope it will pass.
Mr. RYAN was opposed to the passage of the bill.
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 49; nays, 38--for the want of a constitutional majority.
VIGO SUPERIOR COURT.
On motion of Mr. MORGAN, the bill [H. R. 14] to establish a Superior Court in Vigo County was passed-yeas, 79; nays, 0.
DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order to be the bill [S. 214--see page 253 of these Reports, vol. 19] concerning drainage. The bill was the third time.
Mr. GILMAN said a bill passed a few days ago covering all the ground provided for in this bill. He could not see the necessity of two bills on the same subject.
Mr. FRAZER said: This bill was prepared by the Revision Committee. We have had a great deal of trouble in our portion of the State on the subject of ditches. They are built, a few people get the benefit of them, and a large number of land owners surrounding its location are obliged to help pay for its construction. The old bill pro- page: 136[View Page 136] vides that in case of dispute on settlement or assessment, etc., the matter is referred to the County Commissioners for dispositian. This bill provides that you can go before the Circuit Courts, and they settle the matter. I do not see anything in this bill that the House should object to. It does not make it obligatory, but simply says those can go who want to; and I hope the House will pass this bill. It will not do any one any harm, and certainly do a great deal of good.
Mr. EDWINS thought the bill an expensive one, as it took the law out of the hands of the County Commissioners and put it in the hands of the Circuit Court, thereby creating a new Commission. He opposed its passage.
The bill passed--yeas, 73; nays, 9.
OFFICES AND OFFICERS.
On motion by Mr. CAUTHORNE, the constitutional rule was suspended--yeas, 72; nays, 1--and the bill [S. 325]--see pages 25 and 99 of these reports] concerning officers and offices, was read the first and second times by title only, and the reading by sections the third time was commenced--
When the House adjourned.
