The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-02-08

the state; and making certain verbal
changes.
Mr.. Davis raised the point of order,
] that the amendment was the same in
substance as one offered by Mr.. Getz-
endaner while the bill was on engross-
ment.
Mr.. Houston replied that he thought
the point of order not well taken, be-
cause the status of the bill had
been changed since the first
amendment was offered.
The chair overruled the point OF
order.
Mr.. Gibbs said: I am heartily in
sympathy with the general object OF
| this bill, because / feel that the evil
sought to be remedied is a crying one
but don't feel justified in voting for
the bill in its present shape.
/ believe it an outrage for the state
to exercise its great power in forcing
its citizens to perform without COM
penSatiOn duties not incidental TO In
dividual citizenship.
l believe failure on the part of
the state to pay the expenses of
attached witnesses tends to the con-
cealment of crime and imposes upon
| certain individuals more than their
| lust share of the burdens of govern
ment. am not alarmed at the prob
able expense where the bill is suffi-
ciently protective in its restrictions,
for it is better for a state to be bank
rupted in dealing equitably with its
citizens than to be enriched by unjust
and oppressive revenue measures, or
by parsimonious and inefficient per-
Torrance of governmental functions.
Under the bill, in its present shape,
the attorney for the state as well as
for the defendant can have too many
witnesses attached at the expense of
the state, and will have any number
brought to court who would not be
put upon the stand. For this reason
| offered the amendment limiting the
attachment to two witnesses for each
party.
The senator from Madison offer
ed an amendment that the coun-
ties in which the offenSe is
committed pay these witness fees.
This latter amendment don't seem
to meet with much favor. yet it is
based on sound principles and should
be adopted.
1t is not such an innovation as it is
claimed, for large majority of the
states already require counties to pay
AL the expenses of prosecuting offens-
es committed within the respective
counties, while our state and the state
of Louisiana have reversed the rule
and make it the duty Of the
state to pay all such expenses.
The people ut large. however unfOrtu-
nate may be the fact, pay bnt little
attention to appropriations made by
legislature so the tax is not materially
increased; now, if these apprOpria-
tions are made by the commissioners
court nearly every old woman in the
county knows the amount of them.
The senator from Travis argues that
the indictment reads. against the
peace and dignity of the
state" and, therefore. the state
ould pay their expenses.
You force the counties to pay these
expenses and the effect will he that the
officers and al concerned will lie more
economical, and the people will, in as
far as possible, prevent and Speedily
punish Offenses. AS the matter now
stands, the people don't scrutiuize the
expenses. because they are so far re-
moved from the discussing officer.
l submit TO the senator from
Travis if it is fair that
county whose people are law-abiding
should be forced to pay large pro
rata of the expense of prosecuting
offenses committed by the residents Of
other counties. If they have this
burden imposed upon them, where is
their reward for obeying the laws
and purifying their own citizenship?
His county may be an exception and
should be excepted, rs some otfenSeS
common to the state and committed
elsewheres are prosecuted at the
seat of government, but as q general
rule it would be best to put the re-
Sponsibility for crime on the Shout
ders Of the county where committed.
There are a great many governmental
functions that can be properly per-
formed by the state only, but this and
a great many other functions should
he performed by counties and cities
and not by the state. If, as claimed
by the senator. this expense should be
state not pay the expense of keeping up
the roads throughout the stateY
Why shouldn't the counties pay the
witnesses as well as the jurors, which
duty is now imposed on them by law?
There is a reasonable limit to the
powers, duties and responsibilities of
state government, and in Texas we
have in many cases transcribed this
limit.
/ believe the state should divide
with municipalities the expense and
responsibility of administering the
government, and not seek to do so
much in itself.
/ want the individual relieved from
so unjust burden as that now inn
posed. but want to see these expenses
paid by counties, and | don't want to
see it Ieft entirely to the discretion of
IA subordinate officer and defendants
attorney to say how much expense
shall be incurredin these prosecutions.
The law now in force is defective, but
the pending bill is equally defective,
and really more extravaganza in
its provisions. So far as the
affidavit of Il defendant is con-
cerned it really don't afford much
of n safeguard, for when the state has
man lin hoe" for a felony, perjury
hasn't many terrors for him. The
friends of this bill should be willing
to see it amended. for, don't believe,
in its present shape, it can eyer be-
come law, and don't think it should.
Mr.. Terrell: / rise to express my
satisfaction with the bill in its gener-
al features and because on "a former
day in the session l acted in seeming
opposition to it, for / then wanted "A
postponement of action that we might
gather statistical facts as to the oper-
alton of the present and former laws.
The amendment of the senator from
Madison proposes, in effect, that the
counties shall pay costs to witnesses
| in felony cases, while the substitute
of the senator from Ellis would so
limit the effect of the bill that neither
county or state shall pay costs to wit
nesses for the defendant. The exam
nation of the comptroller's office will
convince us that change of the pres
ent law on this subject is necessity.
| For while the state now seizes the
witness and takes him from home To
testify in felony case and gives him
nothing, either for time or expenses
the costs paid by the state are greater
than ever. 1t happens, sir, in this
way; The law allows the sheriff the
amount paid by him in carrying wit
ness seized by attachment to testify
and all necessary expenses in travel
ing, and pays the witness nothing
The result is that enormous bills arr
paid by the state to the sheriffs, while
the witness is often turned loose ia
from home without dollar, to re
turn the best way he can. Nor is thi
I