Democratic Sentinel, Volume 9, Number 15, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 May 1885 — Page 1

The Democratic Sentinel

VOLUME IX.

THE DEMOCRATIC SENTINEL. A DEMOCRATIC NEWSPAPER. PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY, Jas. W. McEwen. RATES OF SUBSCRIPTION. One year .$1.5" Six months 75 hreemonths .60 * A.dv©x*tising K.a.t,©3. One ooiumn. one year, S*o 00 Half column, “ 40 oi Quarter “ “ so oo Eighth “ “ 10 oo Ten per ceot. added to foregoing price if .ylvcrtisements are set to occupy more than jingle column width. Fractional partsof a ycar.at equitable rates Business cards not exceeding t inch space. *5 a year; $3 for six months! $ 2 for three All legal notices and advertisements at established statute price. Heading notices, first publication 10 cents .i line; each publicati on thereafter s cents a Fearly advertisements may be changed quarterly (once in three months) at the optionof the advertiser, free of extra charge. Advertisements'for persons not residents of Jasper county, must be paid for in advance of first pnblic xtion. when less than ©ne-quarter column in size; aud quarterly n advance when larger.

MORDECAI F. CHILCOTE. Attorney-at-Law RINSSELA®*, .... INDIANA Practices fin the Courts of Jasper and adoinlng counties. Makes collections a specialty. Office on north side of Washington street, opposite Court House- vlnl SIMON P. THOMPSON, DAVID J. THOM PSON Attorney-at-Law. Notary Public. THOMPSON & BROTHER, Rensselaee, - - Indiana Practice in all the Courts. MARION L. SPITLER, Collector and Abstractor. We pay r irticular attention to paying tax- , seuint and leasiag lands. V 2 n4B FRANK W. B ibCOCK, Attorney at Law And Real Estate Broker. Practices in all Courts of Jasper, Newtor utd Benton counties. Lands examined Abstracts of Title prepared: Taxes paid. Collections a. Speciaclty. .TAMES W. DOUTHIT, AND NOTARY PUBLIC. L up stairs, in Maieever’s new building, Rensselaer. Ind. H, W, SN ifDEK, ~~ Attorney at Law Remington, Indiana. JOLLEOTIONS A SPECIALTY. ► - » w _w. HARTSELL, MD, HOMEOPATHIC PHYSICIAN & SURGEON. RENSSELAER, - - INDIANA. Diseases a Special OFFICE, in Makeever’s New Block. Residence at Makeever House. July 11, 1884. Dd. dale, • ATTORNEY-AT LAW MONTICEIiI.O, - INDIANA. Bank building, np stairs. f. H. LOUGHEIDGE. P. P, BITTEBS LOUGH RIDGE & BITTftRS, Physicians and Surgeons. Washington street, below Austin’s hotel. Ten per cent, interest will be added to all accounts running uusettled longer than three months. vlnl DR. I. B. WASHBURN, Physician St Surgeon, Rensselaer , Ind. Calls promptly attended. Will give special atter tion to the treatment of Chronic Diseases. ' " ' "Ji_. R. S. Dwiggins, Zimri Dwiggins, President. Cashier Citizens’ Bank, RENSSELAER, IND., Does a general Banking business; gives special attention to collections; remittances made on day of payment at current rate of exchange; interest paid on balances; certificates bearing interest Issued; exchange bought and sold, This Bank owns the Hu-glar Safe, which took the premium at the Chicago Exposition In 1878. This Safe is protected by o»e of Bament’s Time Locks. The bunk vaultused is as good as can be bv.ilt. It will be seen from thn foregoing that this Bank furnishes as gsod sacuritj to depositors as can be. ALFBEDMCOY, THOMAS THOMPSONBanking Mouse F A- McCOY&T. THOMPSON, successor Oto A, McCoy & A. Thompson. Hanker nsselaer, lad- Does general Hanking b ess Buy and sell exchaoge. Collectio d e sn all available points. Money loan ercst paid on specified time deposits. ,t. <?e sam e platt? cJd firm of A. McCo y iiippon. aprU/ttl

RENSSELAER JASPER COUNTY, INDIANA. FRIDAY, MAY 8. 1885.

WHERE TO ATTEND SCHOOL

2.—Where you can get good instruction in whatever you may wish to study. 2. —Where you can get good accommodations and good society. 3. —Where the expenses are least4. —Where things are just as represented, or all money refunded and traveling expenses paid. Send for special terms and try the Central Indiana Normal School and Business College, Ladoga, Ind.

A. F. KNOTTS,

WARTNER’S SENTENCE.

Editor Sentinel; As to “M”s communication in the Sentinel of last week I have but few words, towit: That the people in general are not interested in “X’.’s ability, eloquence, logic, future prospects, or personal appearance. These topics, the burden of “M”s song, are so foreign to the question in controversy that *‘X” hardly feels called upon to answer them in any manner. The public are, however, interested in the commutation of the sentence' ol the condemned man who awaits execution on the 15th day of May, 1885. I wish to notice here briefly some of the legal grounds for the commutation of the sentence, The defendant and prosecuting attorney can not, with the assent of the Court, consen t to a trial for murder in the first degree, by the Court, for our statute expressly prohibits it. See sec. 1821, R. S. 1881, which reads as follows: “The defendant and prosecuting attorney, with the assent of the Court, may submit the trial to the Court, EXCEPT IN CAPITAL CASES.” Also section 1904, reading as follows: “Whoever purposely and with premeditated malice, or in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate, any rape. arson, robbery, cr bu glary, or by administering poison of causing the same to be done, kills any human being, is guilty of murder in the fiist degree, and, upon conviction thereof, shall suffer death or be imprisoned in the state prison during dfe, in the discretion of the jury.” it is a general rule of law in the United States that Avhere a confession is made the sentence is a merciful one. Wartner came into court and admitted the offense charged against him by a plea of guilty, seeking to avoid a trial and secure a sentence us ally rendered under similar circumstances. The Court in ordinary cases can pronounce sentence on a plea of guilty, but in capital cases this right is expressly prohibited by sections 1821 and 1904. R. S. 1881, above cited. In this case the record shows that after a olea of guilty the Court tried the questio i of discretion as to death, or life imprisonment.— The following words are i the record on this point, to-wit: “And the Court, having heard the evidence and being sufficiently advised in the premises, finds the defendant guilty on his plea of guilty heretofore entered herein, as charged in the first count of the indictment and assesses his punishment at death.” This proceeding, I think, is a clear encroachment on the st ictly limited meaning of sections 1821 and 1904, R. S. 1881. If the Judge was not authorized o pass sentence without the intervention of a jury, no act of the defendant —confession consent, or other thing—could make the execution a legal one. See 1 Bishop on crim. pro. sec. 316: “If the Court is not entitled to take cognizance of the offense (and according to the above authority we think it had not) yet proceeds with the cause and conducts it to judgment, and sentences the prisoner to imprisonment, the sentence is a nullity and the prisoner may be discharged on writ of ‘habeas corpus.’ And if the Court is not authorized by law to take cognizance of the offense, it can not become authorized by any consent of the defendant.” . If our premises are correct the

defendant had no power to waive a jury on a plea of guilty. Even a plea of guilty in a “capital case” is not a legal forfeiture of a mark’s life. “A valid charge” - and “twelve jurors of good and lawful men” exercising a discretion vested in each of them by law must, wfe thiuk, concur in a finding, as an exercise of that discretion, before a Judge can pronounce the death penalty with the sanction of the law. The defendant could have the ques ion tested by an appeal cor am nobis, or by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ; The matter is not in any sensei free from doubt, and is worthy of .careful tudy by courts, lawyers, and those who may be called upon to exercise the hangman’s art. Further as to “M”s communication: He follows the advice of the old maxim, “when you have nothing to say, say nothing and be content,” in an enviable maimer. This advice “M” has so carefully observed in his communication that the most chronic grumblers are

Principal.

silent as tjie tomb.

Editor Sentinel: Being a reader of the Republican as well as the Sentinel, I have notified how eagerlo the Republican has sought to find same excuse for attacking the Legislature which has but recently adjourned, and was Democratic in both branch s. It endeavored to make a great noise about the Special Session which was called by the Governor to meet Morch 10th, 1885, implying that an extra session was not necessary, but was a scheme to relieve the tax-payers of the State out of about SISOO per day, while the members of the 54th General Assembly were wrangling over unimportant questions and seeking to disfranchise about 47 per c nt. of the voters of this great State. In 1852, when-the present Constitution of Indiana was adopted, the framers of that Constitution, in their wisdom, thought that 61 days was sufficient time for our law-makers to transact the business of the State. And it was at that time, but, as a State, have we not kept apace with the progressive age in which we live; in the increase of our agricultural resources, mining and manufacturing interests, and in fact all interests which add to the wealth and development of our State. In 1852 we had a population of all colors and sex 988,716 souls. — Our taxable property at that time was about $222,915,904. There was but a few miles of Railroad and Telegraph wires in the State. Our benevolent institutions were very inferior. At that time Fire and Life Insurance Companies were but few —Telephone and Electric light companies were unknown. Now, we have a population of 2,256,348 souls, and taxable property amounting to $1,223,236,465 79; Railroad corporations operating over 6,000 miles of road in the State, r presenting a valne for taxation of $45,442,941, while Telegraph and Telephone wires form a network covering the whole State, and representing millions of dollars worth of property. Our charitable institutions are second to no State in the Union, in proportion to our wealth. Magnificent edifices of learning may be found in our fiities, towns and villages. Our agricultural, mining and -manufacturing interests employ thousands of men, women and coildren, who are dependent upon legislation for laws which will secure them from the exactions of grasping corporations. Tli nwe say if 61 days was enough time in 1852 for our legislators to complete their labors, it is ot now enough time, with all these interests to legislate for and to regulate, so that all classes and conditions of labor may be protected equally with the men of capital who invest in these enterprises.— And if our Legislature does not complete its labors, the Governor should be a man like Governor Gray, who has the courage and i g

COMMUNICATED.

whole-souled and - big-hearted enough to say “Gentlemn, you can sit until your needful legis ation is completed, and for that purpose I call you in special .session!’** ’ The Republican holds up its.jqyids in holy horror because there had been an extra session called: and yet it has been of frequent occurrence when the Republican party controlled the legislative department of the State. There were special sessions in 1872 and 1x873, ’75, ’77, ’79 and ’Bl, and no more need probably than in 1885, and we do not recollect of half as mubh being sad about it as about the last session. As to the disfranchising of 47 q>er cent, of the voters, the Democratic party ’had the power to redistfict the State for Congressional and Legislative purposes, and they did it, the same as did the Republican party in 1875, and if the last apportionment is vicious and unfair th§ party will have to answer for* it to the people in the next campaign, {is did the Republicans in the* campaign of *1876. But take the apportionment of 1875, and that of 1885, hold them up together and let an impartial jury decide wdiich is the most fair to all the people of the State. The Republican should bear in mind the old saying, “That people living in glass houses should not throw

X.

stones.”

Newton Tw’p, May 6th, ’BS.

WARTNER’S SENTENCE.

“Whoever is convicted of murder in the Ist degree shall be imprisoned in the state prison during life, or suffer death, in the discretion of the jury.”—Sec. 1904 R. S. 1881. “The defendant with the assent of the court may submit the trial to the court, ‘except in capital cases.’ All other trials must be by jury.”—Sec. 1821 R. S. 1881. “The penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation and not of vindictive justice.” —Art. 1, sec. 18. Constitution. It is a serious question of debate with good lawyers whether the Court, without the aid of a jury, could impose the death penalty.— The Court can exercise a full discretion in all pleas of guilty, ‘except in the four capital cases,’ under our statute; but for a capital crime the accused “shall suffer death only in the ‘discretion of a jury.’ ”—Sec. 1904. The law regards human life as too sacred to be taken at the hands of the public executioner without the concurrence of thirteen triers —twelve jurors and the Judge.— Many good lawyers are of the opinion that the legislature has wisely and tenderly shielded a man’s life from the legal hangman’s rope unless a jury of twelve honest men—judges of the facts and the law —in their disc retion so find, and that finding be embodied in the Court’s judgment. Had the Judge called a jury and admitted the defendant’s confession in evidence, the jury could have rightfully exercised that solemn discretion so wisely confided to it. The Judge called no jury, but “heard the evidence and passed sentence of death in a capital case.” —Sec. 1821. Under all the circumstances, we are inclined to the belief that civil death —a life sentence to the State prison—would be as well as an execution thus ordered. Wartner may have been ‘non com] os.’ Indeed, mu c has been shown since the trial to demonstrate that he is of unsound mind. The sacred action of a jury trial was not invoked. For want of it the judgment is probably void. — An execution under it is of more than doubtful propriety. The logic of commuting a void sentence, it must be admitted, is rather lame, but better by far than the taking of a life. We had better be guilty as false imprisonment than of homocide. There are some differences of opinion, arising partly from reason, and probably more from sentiment.

Passion and vengeance should have no place in the administration of criminal law. Society can not afford to be rash. Prudence, judgment and’ reason are always safe counselors. If the sentence shall be commuted, society will be protected. If the Supreme Court thinks the judgment unauthorized, we should be content to give the prisoner a lawful hearing, and execute him only when he has been lawfully convicted and sentenced. Simon P. Thompson, Mordecai F. Chilcote, Frank W. Babcock.

Indianapolis,' May 5,1885.0 Editor of Sentinel: The fate of Weibren Wartner, on May 15, 1885, may be commuted, respited, or postponed. I saw Gov. Gray to-day, and I very much doubt whether he will take any action. — It is his belief that it would have been better to have invoked the aid of a jury in arriving at the proper punishment. The words, “in the discretion of a jury” in all capital cases, seem to be words of jurisdiction and adjudication, and preclude action by the Judge alone. The Attorney General is of the opinion that the sentence pronounced by Judge Ward is void, and presents nothing for the Governor’s action, and this will preclude hope in that quarter. The technical niceties of statute law may not he meekly and patiently regarded by some who cry for Wartner’s blood on the appointed day. If he should be hui:g <. n the sentence of Judge Waul, based on. a plea of “guilty,” and the Supreme Court should afterwards decide that he was executed on a void judgment and warrant, our people, and especially those who directed and carried the execution into effect would regret such action. The Court does not meet until May 12th, and their time for deliberation will be short. The strictness and certainty of legal sanctions, even to technical nicety are, om libatim, paid to secure the rights of free and equal citizenship. The doctrine of equal rights demands a strict adherence to law in meting punishment to the guilty and protecting the innocent. A close adherence to “rule of interpretation conserves the public* good by the prevention of Judicial tyranny.” Not for Wartner, as a. man, but for the sake of the Judge, the jailor, and my neighbors, I want no statute violated to secure Wartner’s death. It is as sacred a duty to obey the law of criminal procedure as the statute defining crimes The country is in danger from an over-zeal to infer guilt and demand extreme punishment of all persons accused of crime, as well as from a morbid desire on the part of jurors to acquit. The dutv of the citizen is to secure to each accused person the same care and effort to follow the approved forms of law in his trial. Now, if Wartner’s sentence is void and his execution is proceeded with, his death, will be recorded as a stain on the history of our community. I shall in my feeble way assist Brother Babcock to secure an opinion of the Supreme Court on the points involved, if possible in time to save or sanction Wartner’s death. If the reader will take the pains to read carefully sections 1767 and 1837 of R. S. 1881, it will occur how the Judge inferred his duty to be to at once fix Wartner’s pun* ishment and pronounce judgment on recording the plea of guilty* I do not say that the sentence is not deserved. I am also of the opinion that by Wartner’s plea, silence and acquiescence he to be estopped from questioning the regularity of the proceedings to the extent of his power to consent. A waiver will be a sufficient re-* ply to many constitutional, statutory and common law rights. . No consent, waiver or request in a criminal trial can however contravene a statute. The definition of Wartner’s crimo

DORCAS.

NUMBER 15

THE WARTNER AFFAIR.

[Concluded on Fourth rage.