Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1853-04-07

such as Punishable by imprisonment,
or some othl disability, or at all events
bvfi ne. AID it's questionable. think, whether
this article was ever intended to have reference to
that class Of nlnor Offences, which from time i'm
memorial, both IN this country and in England,
have been made punishable by single magls-
trates, without any OF the Appliances, appara-
tus. which seem IL be indicated in this article
Blu, however that may be, 1t seems to US that the
proceeding Indicated IN the statute under con-
sderalnn is not even one of those minor offences
punishable by fine only.
The proceeding against the relator was in the
first Instance OF criminal nature, and to some
extent, IN rs inception against him, inasluuch as
II deprived him OF his liberty. until he became
sober and that induced us to require nolce to
the states Attorney. Beyond thai. it does not
seem to be "a proceeding against b m, but a sor
OF court # inquiry against sotne unknown. but
suspected person, AS guilty If another offence
against thus saue sta ute, IN furnishing the cause
OF this PERSONS first offence. After the man be-
comes sober, the statute does moi propose to sub
ject hun to any resrrant.by way of punishment tor
any offnuce, but ony to secure his testimony
against other PERSONS suspected OF some vloa
uon Of the law, and aiding IN his first guilt.
The inquiry then arises whether these provs-
ions the law, ~ the mode they arr proposed
to be accomplished are against any fundamental
law OF the State. or the United States. The
Whole matter Is very Considerably affected IN
our view. it we settle clearly in our minds that
the legislature are the sole judges how far dru.l-
kenness, or those who aid in lis perpelratlon are
punishable crlmlna'Iy. lake 1t hat at this dav,
il is scarcely needu for this court 10 spend words
IN indicating this acknowledged right OF the
legislature. How far the thing is durable BY
any process of mere legislative restriction is a
matter with which we have here no possible
concern. We would be hopeful of laws, that
they are IN some sense capable OF answering
their proposed end Assuming then, that the
Legislature have the right to punish drunkenness,
and those concerned IN US perpetratlon, or midi
rec production, and commisson it becomes a
question OF txpedlency merely how far they will
punish II, or IN what mode. We should then,
treat this matter fairly, view this subject IN the
same light we do any other subject Of crimlna
egi,tlon.
Let Us then, for the purpose of placing This
matter IN diff rent point OF view, so as, it pos
sibIe, to perceive It's true bearing. suppose that
IN the first instance the relalor had been guilty
OF a homicide, which was clearly manslaughter,
aud The sheriff had been called IN, after the
whole transaction was ended. and he had taken
HIM into custody and detained him, either IN iail
Or not, tor In that respect there is probably no
difference. Is 1t suppo-able that any one even
without any speciai statute, would regard this as
unlawful! And If moi, then SPECIAL statute
rtqnI'lng 1t conld not be more so, than the ACT,
WITHOUT any express law.
An II the legislature should see fit to punish
hom De, csanndtrd IN a stale of INT ,xcatlun,
~ having flin 1hwted and detained until
he become - complain OF the ar
est AMI q bout warrant and trial by
Jury, arvs he were still liable to
urther aniesDlIf the offence, he could OBJ
ljcct tofs ,asnnuary detention? 1t seems to
US Il could make ne ference, al to the power