Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1865-02-21
PETITIONS

seIcsafJ WluVles OF Silutlaf proceedings
dispensed With
PETITIONS
We're presented BY Messrs Vavter and Oyier,
praying that liquor sellers shall be required TO
procure the consent OF majority OF voters 10
the town before license shall BE granted. which
were referred to the committee on temperance
without reading.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES
Were concurred in Recommending the passage
Of the bill. 5 l56. see page 1873 of the Brewer
Report and that the bill ). IS. page 81 be
laid on the table, similar bill having been or
dered eDgrossed by the Senate
HOUSE BILLS on rHk FIRST READING.
The bills II K. GO. (see page ll9) and So
page e. were read the first time and passed
TO the second reading.
WORK FOB COMMITTEES.
House bills numbered :. (see page I'll OF the
Brewer Reports) 10, tpage IS 10. page 81
l22. page 1857 l56. Cpage 1900 and loo, (page
2l7) and Senate bills l7l aud LIZ, introduced
yesterday were read by title the first time only
and referred to appropriate committees.
The BILL r. r, l5S, (p. 1907 was read the
second time AMI referred 10 the special commit
tee on railroad apPraisements.
ORDERED ESGRossED.
The bill r Is. (on page 81 of the reports
enormously numbered l6. being amended. and
the bill 547 % 54.) were read the second time
and passed to the third reading.
BILLS PASSED.
The following bills we're read the third time
and finally passed the Senate except in the cases
stated:
Senate bill Go see H. incorporating in
section COL OF the practice act the words 'upon
filing affidavit setting forth facts showing that
he had merit0rious cause OF action or &c ense,
and adding thereto these words: The conrt
shall grant but one new trial. unless for good
cause shown, as in other cases, was passed by
yeas 81 NAYS 3
Senate bill No ~ see p. 3D. failed TO pass
for want offs constitutional maiority-yeas %,
NAYS Ia
Senate bill No 80 (see "A of these reports
partially read aud laid on the table.
Subsequently, on motion OF Mr.. Dunning. it
was taken up, the re ,ing thereof finished. and
passed by yeas %. nays 10.
Senate bill No. 81 entered on p IL OF the
por;s.) was passed by yeas SO, nays /.
Senate bill No. "a (see p. IA } was amended
by striking out all limiting its provisions 70 CT
ties incorporated under the general laws of this
state, and passed by yeas 81. nays D.
Senate bill No. 50 (see page 90 of these Re
ports.) being nearly exact copy Of the old
stature upon that subject. was passed by yeas 3D.
NAYS 3
Senate bill No SO. (see page CO., was partially
read and laid on the table.
Subsequently, on motion OF Mr.. Culver. it was
taken uD, the reading thereof finished, and it
passed by yeas 81. NAYS =
Senate bill No - described on page 100 of
the Brewer Reports failed to pass for want of
constitutional msjor,y-yeas "a. nays l3
Subsequently. ell motion by Mr Bennett the
bill was taken up and passed by yeas p, nays
~
Senate bill No 81. amending sec los Of the
special practice act, was read
Mr. Hord insisted that this bill took an unfair
advantage of the criminal, because it provides
that the prosecuting attorney shall have the
opening and closing of the argument. In some
parts of the state tie judges act prosecuting
attornes in giving their charge to the jury. thu,
giving two chances against the criminal to his
one He was satisfied with the law as it is
Mr Niles was of the opinion that the change
proposed By this bill would be beneficial
Nr Oyler thought the change indicated by
this bill was necessary
Mr. Dusniug-It il the presumption of law
that every man ia Innocent till the contrary Is
proven. This law was oppressive on the accus-
ed. he favored the plan OF giving the attorney
of the accused the closing of the argume Old
prosecuting attorneys when they get on the bench
will almost always make their charge TO the jury
an argument against the accused. il not in words
the manner tends to deleterious influence on
the cause Of the accused He Oppose cd the bill
Mr. Bonham-Ths law; - il now stands, IL.
as ! believe. n LAWYERS act, for the benefit of
those who make criminal defense their exclusive
possession The proposed change is seeking no
advantage of those wAo are charged with the
commission of crime IL is rule in all discus
sion that the party upon whom rests the burden
of the issue has a right to commence and con
clude the argument. This being the fact, ask
why this should be an exception to the general
rule. when investigating the conduct of those
who are charged with violating the laws OF the
statef At the present low salary OF prosecuting
attorneys regard the man truly unfortunate
who asplres to the position, and it is notorious
fact. also, that the ablest lawyers do not prose-
cute. therefore the prosecu'or ought TO be
placed an equal footing with the able attor-
ney who is engaged for the defendant
In this day when crime stalks broadcast all
over this country. it has become next 10 impossi
BILE to convict of any crime. Sir while We are
guarding the interests of those who violate the
law think it is emnen.lv proper to guard the
interests of the people of our noble state.
Mr. Mason opposed the bill.
Mr. Downey two years ago advocated
measure OF this kind and he favored il now The
object is TO restore the practice which obtained
in criminal cases prior to 1882 The state Ia
bors under inconvenience enough in such cases
without giving undue advantages TO the GRIM
inal. The charge of the Judge must necessarily
pariake somewhat OF answer TO the argument
last made to the jury-especally If something
be Improperly said. liz the speech of the counsel
for the defense. If il is desired that the judges
speech should not be an argument in favor OF
the state let US return TO the rule as il was be
fore the enactment Of the present law, then there
will be no danger of the judge making argu-
ment against the accused.
If you allow the prosecuting attorney 10 close
the case there would be no danger of the Judge
pre- udicing the minds of the jury against the &C
cused whether he be an old prosecutor or not.
Mr. Cobb This bill was investigated by the
judiciary committee and they did not agree
unanimously upon recommending its passage
There were four members present; two voted for
il. one against il and one remained silent He
believed the passage OF the bill would work an
evil. he never knew any evil growing out OF
the present practice. If this bill should pass he
would immediate introduce bill providing
that defendants all be permitted TO testify
Were this bill 20 Ass you would see innocent
men suffer because the prosecuting attorney
would have undue advantage.
Aud then the bill vas rejected by yeas Is,
nave 0e