The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-12
IN THE HOUSE.
Passage of a Number of Bills and Introduce
ton of Others.
Il n a


ton of Others.
SATURDAY, Feb. 1910 A. NJ.
The Speaker called the House to order
The House was opened with prayer by the
Rev. ]. H. Doddridge.
Senate bulls on their third reading were dis
The bill, S, B. No 20, relating to the quali1ca-
ton of petit jurors in courts of this State, passed
The bill, 5. b. No. 2, defining the crime of
false pretenses, referred TO the committee ON
phraseology of bill for correction.
The bill, s. b. No. 3D. to punish persons who
disclose messages sent over Telegraph lines,
passed-yeas, II. nays, o.
House bills on their third reading were dis
posed of as follows:
To legalize the incorporation of the town of
Syracuse, in Koseiusko county, passed-Yeas, rs;
To legalize the Incorporation of the town of
Silver Lake, Kosciusko county, passed-yeas,
7S; nays, ..
Mr.. Adams bill II. b. No. "a, to amend section
400 OF the civil procedure act, approved Apri
Mr. Frazer stated that the proposition OF this
bill is TO go back to the jury system again, and
he hoped the bill would not pass the House.
Mr. Shivey desired that the bill would not
pass the House. 1t requires all causes to be
tried by jury. He considered many cases too
intricate in their nature for jury 10 hear and
render an intelligent decision-their decision is
simply guess-work.
Mr.. Smith stated that his observation had
been that jurors were not allowed to write down
evidence while in the jury box. This is a privi-
lege that the judge can take advantage OF, and
thereby render better decision than il placed
under the same restrictions. He thought this
bill simply placed twelve men in trammeed
position. He was not III favor of the passage of
the bill
Mr.. Williams, of Knox thought the bill was
not IN the interest of economy 1t would re-
quire at least one-third more time for the
trial of causes in the circuit this State.
In the interest of economy this bill should not
pass.
Mr.. Heffren stated that when the bill was first
introduced he was opposed to it, but after hear
ing the discussion OF the House previously made,
and after closer inspection of the bill he ia
vored its passage. He could not comprehend
why Juries should not try questions of fact In
answer to the argument that injury sometimes
results from trial by jury, he said that in his
long experience at the bar he found that the
benefit resulting from jury trials very much
overoalanced the injury. 1t is not supposed that
every man VINO sits upon jury has classical
education. But he had always found that the
men who come from their farms TO sit In the
1ury-box have as much good common sense
persons who are educated In colleges
Mr.. Moody thought that in great many cases
the jury could not arrive at the facts near
enough to render a decision that would not i'm
mediately be set aside by the court He favored
leaving the law as itnow is.
Mr.. Wilson stated that he heartily agreed with
the gentleman from Washington BIr. Heffren) as
10 the good common sense of our jurors, and be-
heved that If judge placed in iury-box
under the same restrictions that jury is placed
under, he could not render such decision he
would desire to render. You not only consume
ume IN trial by jury, but You have to stand
a chance of their verdict being reversed
by the Supreme Court. Under the provisions
of this bill you will not only entail heavier
expense but you Will have TO increase your cir
cults. We have right to look into and exam
inc the history of a law. Up to 1851 the law
stood in this State as it is now, and gentleman
who has recently investigated the matter told
me That similar law is found in nearly all the
some value in this law. Every juryman who
sits in jury-box to try chaneery case knows
that he does not have in his mind facts that he
wants to bring In a decision upon.
Mr.. Gordon stated that when the question was
up before he favored the bill, bot since that time
he had made some little inquiry and was in
formed that there probably had been more ap-
peals accustomed by this section than any other
section of the civil code He undertook to say
that after judge had given instructions to the
jury that the jury is just as apt to come TO a cor
rect decision as the court itself. lie was of the
opinion that the bill should pass.
Mr.. Adams stated that IL seemed to him that
the objection to this bill SINNERS itself down to
about one proposition-that of trials of cases in
volving accounts by jury. He desired to ask if
this one single objection alone should overbal-
ance all the argument in favor of trial by Jury,
In answer to the argument that jury is not
competent to try case involving accounts he
stated that he could take jury of Morgan
county men, present the case to the jury and
AFTER the Judge had given his Instructions that
jury could render as fair decision any court
in the world. Every member of his bar desired
the Dill to pass. He wanted some man to tell
MN ny 1t requires more time to try a case be-
fore jury than before court. In answer 10
those gentlemen who claimed such to be the
fact, he would say that they must have pettifog-
glng lawye in their court. We do not have this
class of lawyers down our way. He did not be-
lieve that if the bill passed 1t would make an in
crease of half a dozen cases in the Federal
courts Whenever a question of fact is to be
considered, the best way in the world to consid-
This bill ought to pass: 1t is better for the law
yers 1t is better for the farmers it is better for
every body.
The bill passed the House by yeas So, nays %.
ELECTION PRECINCTS
Mr.. Heffren's bill, III. B. No 49, to amend Sec
lions and of an act concerning elections, was
read third time.
Mr.. Smith. of Tippecauoe, stated that the one
thing he thought he knew aboat election mat
tiers was this, that the less frequently the law
was changed the better for all persons con-
cerned He thought the laws were changed SO
frequently that II We were to hold strictly to the
letter of the law no election would be legal. He
thought that the precincts should be small. IL
caused too great delay of the election returns
where the precincts large.
MIR. Wilson, of MariJn moved that the bill be
recommtted, with instructions, TO the committee
on county and township business
Mr., Jewett thought that the motion to commit
should not prevail, and that the bill itself should
be voted down. He thought that the people of
the State were satisfied with the present law,
Mr.. Moody hoped that the motion recommit
would prevail. 1t would simply place th Q bill
back where 1t could be considered again by the
committee.
Mr.. Gordon was of the opinion that our pres
emit election law Is good enough as it Is. rne bill
would not be in the interest OF economy. He
hoped that the motion to recommit would not
prevail. and that the bill wonid not pass.
Mr.. Stewart opposed the motion to recommit.
We have only held one election under the pres
ent law. The people have just learned where
the precincts should not be changed every time
the Legislature met. He considered the differ
ence in che expense of having two election
boards and having one very little,
Mr.. Shivey was in favor of recommitting the
bill 1t had been source of great Inconvenience
10 the people Of his county. He considered
districts He thought 500 voters to the precinct
was not too large.