Mr. Edmunds. That was in the time of Trumbull.
Mr. Sumner. The Senator says, “That was in the time of Trumbull.” But it was reported adversely by the Judiciary Committee, of which my learned friend was a distinguished member, I think. I cannot mistake; he must have been on the Committee, a party to its report; and there was from him no minority voice, no opposition on this floor to the report of the Chairman. He allowed the Chairman to speak for the Committee, including himself.
But the Senator from Nevada, oblivious of this history, insists upon another reference. He wishes to put this bill through another dance. For what purpose? He has read the existing statute to which this is supplementary, and he thinks that the Committee ought to consider the aptitude of this bill to carry out the declared purpose. Why, Sir, I agree with him that such aptitude ought to exist, but do not forget that the bill has been before the Senate now nearly four years. Nearly four years has this bill, substantially as at this moment, been before the Senate, and twice before the Judiciary Committee.
Now, Sir, let us ascend from words to things. Why make another reference? Is it that it may find verbal place on your record that this bill was duly referred and duly reported? That is the only reason I can imagine; for the bill in its substance is well known to every Senator, and, I may add, is well known to every lawyer in the country. It has been discussed here again and again, day after day, and has been modified after discussion; and you now have the result of all the discussion and the modification. It is well known. It is familiar to the country. It has received the approbation of those who are most interested in it. It has been prayed for by petitioners without number. It has been commended at public meetings with an earnestness and an enthusiasm almost without parallel.
Mr. Edmunds. May I ask the Senator a question?
Mr. Sumner. Certainly.
Mr. Edmunds. I should like to ask my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, (as he is now speaking of the character of the bill, which I did not care to refer to particularly,) where the jury is summoned, and a man should happen to be convicted of murder or any other crime under the State law, would it, or not, set aside the verdict?
Mr. Sumner. The Senator will pardon me. I had not intended to touch this branch of the debate.
Mr. Edmunds. I merely wish to ask him what he understands to be the character of the fourth section, supposing we pass it just as it stands, and supposing a jury happens to be summoned contrary to the provisions of the fourth section, but in accordance with the law of the State.