The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1874-05-12

Perhaps nothing connected with the whole
department of criminal jurispr Ldence has so
much that is unreasonable and even unjust as
the laws and customs relating to the confine-
ment and treatment of the witnesses of
criminal act. Not even the partialities and
prejudices connected with the jury system,
including that which disqualifies man from
serving on jury who has Intelligence
enough to read the newspapers, are equal in
their proscriptive character to the statute
laws in this country relating to witnesses
testifying to a crime. From the day OF the
murder, for instance, to the day of the trial,
the eyewitness are 1confined in Jail
unless they are fortunate enough TO have
rich friends who will sign their bonds for
appearance at the trial. And it is the poor
man, of all others, who is least able to bear
this exacting statute. He may have a large
family depending on his daily labor for
support, and yet he may not be given the
liberty TO work for them which he enjoyed
before this accidental witnessingof crime.
The imprisoned man has committed no
crime, he simply has been the casual ohser-
yer of criminal act, and for that fact alone
he not only is deprived of his former liberty,
but he may not even visit those to him
nearest and dearest. The illustrations Of
this fact are so numerous as to need no Mon
ton, bat perhaps the case OF the two wit
nesses in the Stokes-Fisk tragedy was
one of the most fragrant and uniustitiabke on
record. For about two years these wit
nesses were kept in close and continual con-
for m of hnf
1t is astonishing that szch law should so
long have remained on the statute books of
any civilized state, and this fact affords a
curious commentary on the inertia Of public
feeling and opinion. That such a thing had
been the custom for many generations was
evidently reason way it should continue to
remain unchanged. But the world moves
and it carries along even dusty
statute books in its progress. The legisla-
ture of New York rs now discussing bill
which is intended to do away with all this
injustice by simply providing that no wit
ness shall be required to give bonds for sp-
pearsnce in any legsl proceedings, and that
the testimony of sxch witness shall, upon
therequest of either party, be taken in wri-
cling by any authorized court or officer
In case then the witness cannot be produced
for trial, such written testimony will
be accepted as evidence. The defense
can be represented at the taking
of-such testimony, and may be allowed the
privilege of a cross-ex animation. Indeed
similar proceeding has always bees in vogue
on the part of the defense in criGninal suit,
but there is no good reason why the prose-
cntion may not be allowed the same privi-
lege. The PERSONAL presence Of a witness is
indeed strongly to be desired, 'but why
limit il to the dictation of only
one party in the legal proceedings?
Again, this feature of the new law
recommends il in the Fact that a testimony
of a witness once takem, the great induce
ment to isappearanceiisremov aud at the
same time the chances of his being sub
jected to the temptations of periary are
greatly lessened. Of there provisions of this
bill can once become a lasv in New York
the other states will not be slow 10 ineorpor-
ate similar change in tbsir criminal stat
utes. The great wonder is that such
alegal injustice has remained so long am
changed.