Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-01-19


against him, and to have copy thereof;
to meet the witnesses face to face; to
have compulsory process fer obtaining wit
nesses in his favor; and in prosecutions
bv Indictment or presentment, speedy
public trial by an impartial jury OF the
county or district in which the crime shall
have been committed, unless the VeTaue
shall be changed, for good cause, to
another county or district IN the mode
to be prescribed by q general public
La,V. passed before the alleged com
mission of the offence; and shall not be
compelled to give evidence against him
self.
MIR. Burton moved to amend the 9th
section by striking out the words in
italics.
Mr.. Heiskell-That is an amendment
that ought to be made. We have
lived a long time under Constitu-
ton without these words in italics,
proposed by the Committee on the Bill of
Rights. The person accused has always
had the right to change the venue
if he chose to do SO. fully concur in
the amendment to strike out these words
and allow the section to remain as in
the former Constitution.
Mr.. Gardner also cOncurred in the
motion to amend.
MIR. Burton was not certain that he
understood the purpose OF the Committee
| reporting this amendment In italics; and
he could not see the reason for it, If the
| Constitution now secures the rights OF the
accused; and he thought with the gentle
man from Shelby, Mr.. Heiskell, that it
| did. He appIehended, that If the words IN
italics are preserved, it might ecompetent
for the Legislature to provide for change
of venue against the will of the accused. If
there was any danger of that he would be
opposed to it, and he rather thought that
| might be the case.
Mr.. Jones, of Giles, hoped that the
amendment would not prevail He re-
| garded this change reported by the Com
mittee rs an important one, and submitted
an example: Suppose the section to re-
| main as it is now. You remember, Mr.
| President, notorious criminal cause in
whi:h you and myself were once engaged.
| An atrocious murder had been committed,
which created a great deal of excitement
And when the case was brought to trial in
| that county, and that, after exhausting
all the panels of juries, it was found to be
| impossible to get jury of men not hay
ing expressed an opinion, the Hon. Elijah
Walker, one of our ablest judges, ordered
a change of venue to the county of Maury,
where the trial was had, conviction
obtained, and the prisoner was sent to
the penitentiary for fifteen years. And,
| afterwards, when the case was carried to
| the Supreme Court, the order for change
of the venue was overruled, and the case
was remanded for trial in the proper
county. And the Supreme Judge, in de-
claring the opinion based on the cOnstitu-
tiOnal Limitation, suggested the impor-
lance and necessity of a change in the
Constitution to reach such cases. Now,
sir, suppose you allow the constitutional
| provision to stand as it is; where the cit
| liens of the county have so
generally expressed an opinion as
to the guilt or innocence of
the accused as to render it impossible to
! get a Jury, the prisoner escapes the pun
| ishment of his crime. Was that right?
Was that the public policy of TENNESSEE
to have an organic law that will shield
the foulest murderers What design
could there be in the Legislature drawing
around the citizen all the guards which
| his friend from Rutherford could ask
| for2 If the Judge be unable to obtain q
| Jury, let the law authorize him to change
the venue. 1t could be changed now
with the consent of the accused, but not
| otherwise And, in such cases as he had
referred to, you can never bring the ac-
cused to trial. Therefore this change
should be made in the organic law. With
| out it, Mr.. President, an outraged
and indignant community will sometimes
| take the law into their own hands.
Mr. Burton-It seems to me that the
distinguished gentleman from Giles fOrgets
one thing-the rights of the accused. All
l contend for is that the constitutional
provision remain just as it is. object to
the italicized PROFESSIONALISM the prosecu-
| ton may change the venue; because |
| think that any such evil as contemplated
| by the gentleman can never arise. | think,
| as he suggests, that if a community were
so grossly outraged that they could not
have an impartial jury of the county, that
the accused would be the first to find it
| out, and himself desire the change TO
| avoid the popular indignation.
Mr.. Stephens-I venture to say, that
| there has never been, for the last half
| century, any such instance of prisoners
escape, except that referred to by the gen
| tleman from Giles. A voice, 81 know of
two more. That is three, then in the last
| 80 years Now, the right of trial by
jury is the palladium of English liberty.
1t is partly what we went to war about
with the mother country nearly hundred
years ago. 1t is monstrous power of
the Government, to drive a man away
| from his home for trial-away amongst
strangers. For the Government have the
| power to compel the attendance of wit
| ncsses-and it has sometimes strong and
sinister temptations to do so whilst
the accused man is helpless as to the
power to obtain the attendance of wit
nesses. l really do think that this re-
ported amendment is dangerous innova-
| ton upon the organic law of the State. l
do not want to see provision in the Con
stitutiOn by which a prisoner, manacled,
it may be, for political offense, dragged
| from his home, his wife, children and
friends, at great expense and danger, and
brought TO trial amongst, perhaps, his
enemies. do hope this will not be
done.
| was glad to hear recently one OF the
| Supreme Judges declare that there are two
things that the law always presumes in
favor of-life and IibeTty-that ought to
be in the fundamental law. Sir, this pro-
vision is now found in the Constitution,
in the Bill of Rights, section 9. 1t Is
| there word for word as our fathers fixed
it at Knoxville, February, 80, and this
important provision, almost word for
word essentially the same, is one of the
| articles in the amendments to the COnsti-
tuition of the United States-securing to
| the accused the right of a speedy public
trial by an impartial jury in the State or
! district where the crime was committed.
If the proposed change is adopted and it
should be ratified by the people, you
strike down one of those great barriers
| for the protection of the lives and liberties
| of citizens.
know the accused may have compul-
sorry process to secure the attendance OF
witnesses; But know it is much easier to
secure the attendance of witnesses for
| the State. For the State IS able to pay.
1t is not always so with the accused. 1t
may be that in the lapse of eighty years,
here and there a casual instance may have
arisen in which this section has worked
hardships. But, sir, should we strike
down one of the great safeguards of the
| citizen in consequence of that9 Should
| we not maintain the bulwarks of liberty2
| Why, sir, believe this one of the prin-
| ciplcs of the Mama ChGrtd-venerated
| for ifs antiouity-halloWed as coming to