Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-01-31


and permit il to 20 further without showing its
entire desiifution Of truth.
Mr. Ciaypool submitted that the reporter
this floor had nothing TO do with tins matter. be
reported the proceedings here. and knew nothing
of the charge alluded 10.
Mr. Wolfe did not think an editorial article in a
newspaper was a question OF privilege Any
thing appearing in the reports OF the proceedings
of this body would he question of privilge, but
not what might appear in other parts of even the
same paper He hoped this distinction would be
observed. He could complain, aud 30 could 9th
ers. Of attacks of the same paper, but he passed
them by
Mr. Ray: Whether this is a question Of priv.
'ege depends upon the further question whether the
inquiry looks IN some proceedings against the
perpetrator Of the calumny If we look to the
preceSents in Parliament and Congress. we will
find the point sariously settled; but take IL TO
be the better practice and warranted by the right
of authority, that where the defamation Is a news
paper libel not relating To the legislative action
of the member. and does not purport 10 be a re-
port from a reporter on the floor. II is not aques-
ton of privilege. Because we can take no action
10 redress the wrong complained of against the
editor Of a newspaper, whether he lives in lndi-
annapolis or New York But where the calumny
affects the members legislative action and pur-
ports to be proceeding in the legislative hall
where be belongs, and where redress may be had
by expeling the reporter. it is question of priv
ilege, and within the cognizance OF the legislative
body. This is but a newspaper calumny, and
cannot be noticed here. 1t does not appear
among the proceedings of the Senate, and throws
no suspicion on the reporter, who, am sure,
would not be guilty of any such breach of the
privilege he ENJOYS on this floor. This dstinc-
ton being always kept in view will enable the
Senate to determine question OF privilege
Mr.. March hoped that Dir. Corbin would
al. H. l.l
known the Reporter for many years, and fairer
minded man did not live Indeed, he believed
both Reporters were inclined TO act conscien-
tously AMI fairly.
Mr. McClurg thought Senators had misunder-
stood the Senator from Marshall He did not
allude to the Reporter on this floor, but to the
person who reported the matter to the editor of
the Journal upon which the ISLANDER founded.
Mr. Johnson thought that the Senate having
subscribed for large number of papers OF the
journal named had the right, If il continued To
SANDER members. ut least To withdraw their pa
tronage.
Mr. Cobb thought it was privilege question
In Congress, when members grossly
saulted, they were allowed 10 speak on it rs
question OF privilege. He did not think that
members should speak every frivolous charge
made by newspapers. but this particular
case The paper was taken at the expei s. of the
State, and had Reporter recognized officially on
the floor. That Reporter, as far as he knew, had
acted fairly. He had no cause OF COMPLAINT
against him.
The President did not decide the member from
Marshall out of order, although concurrng fully
with the member from Shelby, Mr. Ray. The
article did not appear in the legislative proceed
ings nor in the summary of the proceedings If
the article had thus appeared. it would. perhaps.
have been a question of privilege He knew the
Reporter here, and had known him for years ami
satisfied of his fairness He did not object
to Mr.. Corbin making his statement and DENYING
the charge; but. in his opinion the subject should
rest there. The gentleman from Shelby had rep
resented his views the question OF privilege
clearly and fully
INTRoDCCTIos OF BILLS.
Mr.. Downey-No "a: To tx the time of hold
ing the Courts of Common Pleas in the Common
Pleas district.
Mr.. Landers-No. IS: To amend the Ist sec
ton of the Justices act.
RESOLUTIONS.
Mr.. Wolfe: That the Judiciary Committee be
requested to report a bill ab0liShing the Office Of
Common Pleas Prosecuting Attorney, and tax
ing from the Court criminal jurisdiction.
Mr.. Wolfe introduced the resolution IN the i'm
perative form to get aB exfressioIl-Of the views
of Senators. There proposition before the
Judiciary Committee to abolish the Court en-
tirely. He did not think a bill to thai effect
could pass the Senate. The objections to the
Court we're mainly on account of the fact of two
officers, one in the Common Pleas and one in
the Circuit Court, whose duties were similar
Take from the Common Pleas criminal iurisdic
ton and give it all to the Circuit Court, and all
the fees going to one person would secure better
talent by making the office remunerative He
argued at length on the propoStion contending
that relieving the Common Pleas Court of its
most Objectionable feature would work we'll for
our judiciary system.
Mr.. Mellett opposed TO abOlshing the
Office OF District Prosecutor. He did not know
how the gentleman arrived at his conclusion that
the Common Pleas could not be abolished He
did not think so. The reason, and the only one
he knew why it could not be abolished was the
opposition OF the Judges of that court 1t had
been shown that the abolition of the court would
effect reiOrm-be great saving OF expense and
great convenience to the people, and these ar
gumentS had not been met He was opposed to
the system giving two courts concurrent juris
dcton He wanted the question met fairly and
squarely. Let The Senate meet it. Ii the rea
sons for its abolition are good, abolish it; it they
are not, retain 1t, but do not waste time in tin
kering il up by reforms
Mr. Browne. OF Randolph, was in favor of
aboliShng the Office of District Prosecutor for tie
reason that the emolument would not and could
went on to illustrate. While the system was con
tinuel this would always be the case. There
grave objections this concurrent jurisdic-
ton ul criminal business The Prosecutor closrted
himself into Grand Jury and inflicted untold
wrongs upon the community. 1t intol-
cradle nuisance, and il cried out for reform. He
would vote to abolish the Common Pleas
Court all the time, hut ii that could not be OBJ
tanned abolish the office OF Prosecutor-it would
be that much gain.
Mr.. Wolfe moved to amend by adding the fol
lowing additional resoution-that il is inexpedi-
ent to abolish the Common Pleas Court.
Mr.. Melett added in the proper place "and
abolish the jurisdiction OF said Court in civil
causes"
Mr. Wolfe objected TO Mr. Meett's amend
ment. 1t would reduce the Courtto an old fash
toned Probate Court He favored every measure
to reform it. He knew it required reform, but
before he would consent 10 abolish it he must he
assured that better system could he devised and
brought forward 10 replace it, 1t was on this
ground alone that he opposed the abolition of the
COur5. II YOU dise~t il OF civil and criminal in
riS,iiciion on have circuit probate system in
the Sale VII chs be an impIoy ement on the
score of expense You have the judges 10 pay
and the machiner, of a court to keep Up. Ii YOU
strike the Court doMsl-aboli~h it--you throw the
probate business into the Circuit Court De knew
that the Judges that Court were competent
but with multiplicity of business would YOU
better the manner ot doing that branch of bust
ness or would YOU che spen itI Another PROPOSE
ton was to give the Clerks of Courts probate ju-