The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-01-23
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
THURSDAY, Jan. %, 1850 a. 4.
THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM.

THURSDAY, Jan. %, 1SS5-10 q. y.
THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM.
Mr.. TAYLOR, from the Committee on the
Judiciary, returned Mr. Patterns bill a. X.
Isl to abolish Grand Juries, with q recon-
meu dstion that ii ue indefinitely postponed.
Mr.. PATTEN: I don't particularly care
about bill Of that kind myself, bat have
drafted that bill in the interests of economy.
/ know that the Grand Jury system is a
very extensive one. and undertake to say,
and believe every body will agree with me,
that it is system of barbarian and inquisi.
ton. The Grand Jury is of service to no
body. 1t is not effective. 1t has retarded
justice. This bill provides that. the
prosecution shall be by sny Zone.
1t gives to the officers OF the State
OF Indiana fU power to file an information
against his Informant, or to compel parties TO
go up before tire court of jurisdiction and
file the AFT svit. There ia great deal of
exper sc in bringing people before the Grand
Jury. To III ustTare, Governor Hubbard, of
Texas, said upon several occasions that,
when young man, he wss Prosecuting At
torney, and there was an old man drawn who
was deaf in one ear and said he could not
hear well. You are just the kind of man
expected TO sit on Grand Jury; you are
not expected to hear ont of one ear" 1t is
only q one-sided examination. / undertake
TO say that after the examination has once
Deen gone through Win DelOre the Uran0
Jury, the whole matter has 20 be gone through
with, and the whole expense and cost
incurred again in the Court. | don't
purpose to go into the details of the merits
of this bill, but to say that il ought to have
q fair hearing before this body. had hnoed
that the wisdom of the Judiciary Com
mi;tee would prepare a more perfect bill
and present it to the House. The Grand
Jury defeats the very object for which it was
instituted, therefore ! ask that the report of
the committee be laid upon the table, and
be ~ committed 10 the Committee on the
Judiciary, | asked to be informed when the
bill came before the committee that might
appear before them, but | was not informed.
Mr.. DAVIS: / don't remember OF his re-
quest TO be heard before the committee.
assure him that no disrespect was intended
him.
On motion by Mr.. PATTEN the bill was
recommitted.
wONAN's RIGHTS.
Mr.. TAYLOR, from the Judiciary Com
mittee, returned Mr.. Jameson's Woman's
Rights bill III. r. 50l with a recommends
ton that it be indefinitely postponed.
Mr.. JAMESON: This is bill to amend
tie section of the Married Womsn's act, 1881,
which provides that married woman shall
not enter into any contract OF suretyship.
The courts, by construction, have extended
the effect of this section to prohibit married
women, their husbands joining, from mort
gaging their separate real estate, or that held
by them and their husbands as tenants by
entirety. Ii the present law is to stand some
of our best lawyers think the same reason
ing by which the courts have arrived at the
construction of the law nov placed upon it
would Inevitably lead to the conclusion that
q mortgage OF man and his wife on real
estate owned by the husband would be void
as TO the wife's interest therein, for the
hat n 10 cd rat
wife s interest in real estate of her husband,
mortgaged by husband and wife to secure the
husbands debt, is security only for the hus-
bands debt. The bad effect of this needs
no comment While the opinion of the Ju-
dietary Committee on purely legal matters
Is entitled to weight, on matter OF the
character of the one in question the opinion
of a lawyer is entitled to no more weight
than that of any other man of equal intelli-
gence. The question is not legal one; it is
one of justice. OF expediency and of pub
lie policy. The present law is no real
but is harmful law. 1t imposes disabilities
known to no former law. In cases where its
provisions should afford some protection 1T
is continually avoided by indirection. Dis
honest husbands and wives collide to use
the law as an instrument to commit fraud
on honest creditors, and intelligent women
are prevented from free and proper use OF
their property to which II Justice they are
entitled, and are often forced to sacri6ce
their property by sale because they have not
the power TO mortgage IL
Mr.. TAYLOR: This bill has been very
thoroughly discussed by our committee.
Laws are not made so much for the enjov-
ment of the rich as they are for restricting
the vicious and protecting the weak. This
bill seems 10 have been conceived for thu
purpose of making essy the power and in.
h1ence OF the husband over the property of
wife. l think. sir, the Law as it now
exists is very proper one. il has
rot been placed there by
sudden gush Of feeling, but in the wisdom
of the Legislature, the members have seen
proper to put such laws upon the statute
books. The Law is well settled in Indiana
that no woman can become the surety OF
her husband. The point is, whether such
bill IS is proposed By the gentleman of
Marion, shall become law in the State of
Indians, and thereby repeal the safeguard
thrown around the home of married women.
Sometimes q nsn uses his power over his
wife 10 make her sign q mortgage. a
mortgage generally means g deed, and IL
means that the property may De taken from
the wife If he is improvident. The Legis-
lature of this State would be doing violence
to its conscience TO take away any
safeguard they have thrown around the mar
ried woman. / ana perfectly willing to have
this matter discussed before the House. /
don't selieve the sentiment of the House
would he for repesliDg this Law.
Mr.. Mem L Lien: This is a question in
which we are all interested, and il seems 10
me that under our rules this is not the proper
time to discuss the merits OF this bill. II
seems TO me ii would be right 70 recomm nit
this bill so that We all might have the right
IN dierues