of the Illinois and Michigan canal, it will require from our State, its owner, a transfer of all the interest of the State in the canal to the United States. I therefore respectfully request that you will enact a law, with proper safeguards in it, turning the control and ownership of the canal over to the United States, subject to a vote of the people at the next general election, in pursuance of our Constitution. As the Constitution requires that the proposition of transfer submitted should be specific, it seems to me that the establishment of the conditions and terms of transfer is a necessary condition precedent to the submission of the proposition, and should be included in the same act which provides for such submission.

The improvement of the rivers which form the western and southern boundaries of our State should receive national aid, and I believe will do so, but I do not think it would be wise or pertinent to connect that with the transfer of the canal, or impose upon the transfer any conditions other than those which are immediately connected with the property, which seems to me to be, as already stated, the enlargement of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, and the improvement of the Illinois river.

I shall close this consideration of the canal question by repeating that portion of my message to you at your regular session which had reference to the deepening of the canal, especially in a sanitary point of view, as a strong additional reason why we should do all possible to hasten the improvement:

"The deepening of the canal so as to give a steady southerly current of the waters of Lake Michigan into the Illinois river, has been of immense sanitary advantage to the city of Chicago, in that its effect has been to purify the Chicago river, and in a great measure save the sources of water supply of that great city from contamination by sewage. But, in consequence of the enormous increase of population and manufactures in Chicago, the supply of water flowing through the canal does not sufficiently dilute the sewage to make it innocuous, and the result is a serious injury to the populous districts which border on the canal in the counties of Will, Grundy and LaSalle. The evil consequences of the insufficient supply of water are most keenly felt in winter, and such representations have been made to me by the authorities and citizens of Joliet, Lockport and other towns, that I have caused investigation to be made by the Canal Commissioners and by the State Board of Health, whose reports on these questions will be placed before you, with suggestions as to the best means of remedying the evils complained of. It is represented to be perfectly feasible to so increase the flow of water through the present canal as to make its bed and borders healthful and pure. The subject should receive your immediate and careful consideration. There can be no discussion as to the duty of the State to see that its own property is not maintained or operated in such a condition as puts in peril the health and lives of its citizens; and that such is the present condition, in winter at least, of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, seems to be clearly established."

These evils have not been so seriously felt the past winter on account of the copious rains and the absence of ice, but any cold winter will bring them back, if the cause is not removed.

REVISION.

I regard it as very important that you shall act favorably upon the fourth subject named in my proclamation, and provide for the appointment of a commission to revise the criminal jurisprudence of our State, with authority to report their revision to the next General Assembly. Our criminal jurisprudence is certainly very defective. The protection and welfare of society are the objects of criminal law. The law describes such acts as are believed to be injurious to society and of sufficient importance, and forbids them, and enforces its commands by punishment. It protects the innocent by punishing the guilty. The conduct thus punished is classified and defined as crimes, and penalties are imposed proportioned to the nature of the offenses. To the definition of crimes in our criminal code there is no serious objection. The complaint is more against the practice of the criminal law. While I would not favor any system of laws or any practice that did not secure to persons charged with crime a fair and impartial trial, yet the State is not called upon to guard with such a jealous eye the rights of the accused, that the rights of law-abiding citizens and the peace of society are imperiled. By an examination of the criminal jurisprudence of many of the States of the Union, I find that there is a strong tendency to a simplification of criminal pleadings. The technical character of indictments had their nature and their origin, as Judge Lockwood well expressed it, in the sanguinary nature of the English laws and the unprotected condition of the prisoner. Advancing civilization has, however, been endeavoring for centuries to apportion punishment to crime according to its intrinsic atrocity and danger.

I shall not at this time attempt to fully point out and discuss what I regard as defects in our criminal laws and practice, but content myself with a few instances and suggestions. The law in relation to changes of venue should be amended. Under the present law, the judge, in the trial of a criminal cause, on an application for a change of venue by the defendant supported by the affidavit "of two reputable persons" of the county alleging that the judge is prejudiced, and that the accused cannot have a fair trial, must send the case to some other county or judge. I think the absurdity of such a law is apparent. The judge may be entirely ignorant of the accused, or the crime alleged against him, yet he must grant the change on the allegation of prejudice, with no means or opportunity to investigate the character of the two citizens of the county, or to question the truth of their affidavits. The law in relation to the selection and qualification of jurors should be amended. There is a belief that the technicalities of the law rob justice, and that punishment does not follow crime with sufficient certainty. Juries ought to be composed of intelligent and just men; and how to secure them in all cases is a difficult problem, and the experience under our present law, especially in cities, shows that a change is imperatively demanded in the rules and practice governing their selection. In the selection of so important a tribunal, all agree that great care should be taken, and their 'qualifications should be described by statute with particularity and clearness. Care should also be taken that no one not qualified should be selected.

The very foundation principle of judicial administration will be destroyed unless the jury box can be protected from incompetent and venal men. The law in relation to challenges by the defendant, arraigned for any crime punishable by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary, should be amended. So large a number of peremptory challenges as is now allowed by law often results in excusing the men best qualified for service. The fact, too, that a person called as a juror has an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, should not disqualify him to serve in the case, if such person can state, on oath, that he will, if taken as a juror, decide the case on the evidence as given on the trial, and will impartially render a verdict in accordance with the law and such evidence so produced, and the court shall be satisfied of the truth of such statements. The law should also be amended so as to make the jury the judges of the facts only-the court the judge of the law. I think this is the law in nearly all the States of the Union. They do not favor entrusting the jury with the decision of legal questions which often perplex the ablest lawyers and judges whose entire lives have been given to the study of law. In Illinois, the court must instruct the jury as to the law applicable to the points involved in the trial, but the jury may utterly ignore the instructions when given, and decide the law for themselves.

The constitution rests all judicial power in the courts, and I do not believe that the framers of our constitution intended to place the decision of law questions in the hands of persons who never read a law book. I believe that the judge should be required to write his own instructions, and give them to the jury before the argument to the jury commences. If this were required, fewer instructions would be given, they would state the law more accurately and clearly, and would not be so likely to mislead as they too often do when drawn by the attorneys in the cause. If, however, the argument should suggest to the court any new points on which the court might believe it necessary to give additional instructions, such additional instructions should be given after argument. I think the law should be amended so that in all criminal cases the jury should be required to simply find the accused guilty or not guilty, and that the court, in case of conviction, should fix the punishment under the statute; and that before the sentence the State's attorney be required to produce such evidence as he may have as to whether the defendant has been convicted before, and as to his character, and that the defendant also have the right to produce any evidence on the same points; and that upon the verdict and upon such evidence, and the evidence produced on the trial, the court be required to fix the punishment. In determining the degree of punishment, the fact that the defendant had been convicted before, and his character, should be taken into consideration.

The practice governing continuances in criminal cases should be changed. The interests of society demand that crime shall not only be punished certainly, but promptly. It is too easy to secure a continuance under the practice of the criminal law in this State. Under the general Practice Act applicable to civil causes, the party making application for a continuance shall state what he expects to

prove by his absent witness, and the other side may admit that such witness would testify as alleged in the affidavit, and the admission shall have no greater force than if such witness were present and testified, leaving the other side free to controvert the statements contained in the affidavit, or impeach the witness, the same as if he were present in open court. Whether the law should be the same in the trial of persons charged with crime, I am not sure, but I am unable to see why it should not be. The defendant has no constitutional right to be confronted by his own witnesses. The Criminal Code of our State lacks uniformity in the matter of penalties. It may be said to be an old garment, often mended, and not always well done. I might give many illustrations to prove this statement, but I do not deem it necessary. An examination of the law in relation to bribery, the crime of obstructing a railroad, the several sections in relation to false imprisonment and kidnapping, the sections of the code in relation to larceny, all, upon a careful reading, will show that the code is not homogeneous, but many of its provisions are inconsistent with each other, and greatly need a careful revision and amendment. I think the law in relation to the imposition of penalties, as a means of punishment, should be amended. Three elements are recognized by society in fixing the penalty for crime. These are moral turpitude, the protection of society from the evil results of crime, and the reformation of the offender. These three elements do not seem to have had due consideration in fixing the penalties for offenses in the adoption of our criminal code.

I have given you briefly some of the reasons why I think our laws in relation to the punishment of crime should be revised. I have not asked you to make the revision at your session, because from my own knowledge of legislation I am sure you could not make such a revision as ought to be made without consuming too much time, and it can be much more economically done by a commission of able men first making the revision and reporting it as a whole to the General Assembly for their consideration.

APPROPRIATIONS.

The fifth subject to which I desire to call your attention is an appropriation for the State Normal University.

The act for the establishment and maintenance of a State Normal University, approved February 18, 1857, provides:

"SECTION 8. The interest of the University and Seminary Fund, or such part thereof as may be found necessary, shall be and is hereby appropriated for the maintenance of said normal university."

In

Since the adoption of the Constitution, which makes it the duty of each General Assembly to provide for the expenses of all the State institutions, an appropriation of the interest of the College and Seminary Fund has been made biennially. In 1873 and 1875 the whole fund was given to the State Normal Universities. 1877 and 1879 it was divided between the two normal universities. At the session of 1881 bills were prepared in the usual form, making appropriation for the ordinary expenses of each university, each bill containing an appropriation of one-half the interest of the college

and seminary fund, with other amounts for the payment of ordinary expenses. The appropriation for the Southern Illinois Normal University passed as prepared in the matter of the appropriation of one-half of the interest of the college and seminary fund, but in the bill for the appropriation for the State Normal University, at Normal, the words "in addition to the one-half of the interest of the college and seminary fund, which is hereby appropriated, inadvertently dropped at some stage, and the bill passed without the omission being noticed.

I recommend. that this error be remedied by proper legislation, and that the one-half of the interest of the college and seminary fund be appropriated for the payment of the ordinary expenses of the State Normal University.

It will be necessary for you to make an appropriation for the expenses of this called session.

I am confident you will be able at an early day to reach the results in such enactments as you may deem it wise to make, which will serve the public interest and do credit to our State.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

March 23, 1832.

S. M. CULLOM, Governor.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. Terwilliger, Assistant Secretary:

Mr. Speaker: I am directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with them in the adoption of the following joint resolution, to-wit:

Resolved by the Honse of Representatives, the Senate concurring herein, That a joint committee of three on the part of the House and two on the part of the Senate be appointed to wait upon the Governor and inform him that the two houses are now in session pursuant to proclamation, and are ready to receive any communication he may see fit to make. And I am further directed to inform the House of Representatives that the President of the Senate has appointed as such committee on the part of the Senate, Senators Kirk and Archer.

JAMES H. PADDOCK, Secretary of the Senate.

Mr. Strattan of Jefferson offered the following resolution, and moved its adoption:

Resolved, That the message of his excellency the Governor be referred to a committee of three for proper action in regard thereto.

Mr. Baldwin offered the following substitute for Mr. Strattan's resolution:

Resolved, That so much of the Governor's proclamation and message as relates to Senatorial apportionment be referred to the committee on senatorial apportionment; and so much as relates to congressional apportionment be referred to the committee on congressional apportionment; and so much as relates to providing for submitting to a vote of the people of the State at the next general election the proposition for the transfer of the Illinois and Michigan canal to the United States be referred to the committee on canal and river improvements; and so much as relates to the appointment of a commission to report to the next General Assembly a revision of the law in relation to criminal jurisprudence be referred to the judiciary committee; and so much as relates to the appropriation of one-half of the interest of the college and seminary fund for the ordinary expenses of the State Normal University, and so much as relates to making an appropriation of this session of the General Assembly, be referred to the committee on appropriations.

And the substitute was adopted.