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

| discretion for the magistrate, in case of this
kind, we should probably have more work of the
this kind, than would be altogether consistent
with our other duties.
| We should require IN such case proof of abuse
of authority of . clear and decided character.
And we are notsatisfed that any such thing
has occurred, in the present case. so that we
could not Interfere here, if the application had
been in any other torm.
NoTE. 1t seems to me, that all the proceed
lngs In the administration of the police in the
cities where they have no jury trial whatever, if
Inc ofences whlclIthey ASSUME to punish by tine
and imprisonment, come fairly within this pro
vision OF the United States Constitution, and of
the Constitutions OF most of the States, are al
together void and illegal and violations of the
hrst principles OF the liberty of Englishmen, as
defined in Magma ChartG. But no such idea
has ever been entertained. No man ever sup
posed that every time policeman arrested
night-waker, or a drunken brawler, in New
York or London, he was violating the chartered
rights OF the cltizens,o subject, in the manner
claimed here
And 1t IS difficult for me 10 prec Give how any
OF The criminal prosecutions before magistrates
can be fairly indicated, if they come within
the general scope of thus article Of the Bill ot
Rights. A jury Of six men is not the jury midi
Gated by the United States Constitution or by
Magma Chart, any more than jury OF three
men, Or two. And jury of The country. IN the
language of our Bill Of Rights, means jury
of traverse of twelve men, no doubt. And do
not believe it would be regarded as constitution
al for legislatures TO provide thai in trials for
high crimes punishable hy Imprisonment IN STATE
prison or other persopa.sasSsblIity, the offender
should he tried bs s&a saSsS,r six men
even. 1t sesns a a. alsslm Gsss4Rot give this
Gans'i utional prlyI3 tstf pIssa scope asked
IfosCt without. ln.e 11fiuehe most
eaEient and aSseH govern
nent And we ed ole 1s!lle dunb'
that it was never, Epantryy where the
common lawpleysi eae4 to have any such
scope. EETh
And it seems u ~ T6lAlpr has no just &C
cqsion TO feel, thai times IRE evil beyond all
former precedent, odlhat he suffers, beyond all
other citizens Drunkenness, in various WAYS,
has always formed a subject Of police regulation
in the State. From 1877 to about the year 1920
Il law was IN force III the State, whereby per
Sous who were IN danger OF becoming charg
UPON the town, by reasDn OF drunken IS or other
dissipation, might. on complaint oi selec'men
to tw, justices, and notice to the person, be alb
soutely deprived of their property, and they
and their families put under guardianship. Ton
an indefinite term. That law and Others. with
different qualifications have almost always exist
ed in the Site, and have been enforced, whel
occasion required and no man supposed any
Constitutional provision was thereby violated.
And long acqulescence IN regard to Cons l.
tI,tt ,nnl lot IL az INN lrtn n
scrlption aud az often resorted to, In my judy
.uent, we could not declare this portion OF TIT
law void without involving, in principle, to
very great extent, the entire police the stall
in the same category. For no jury trial Is. o
ever was, allowed lin any of these or slmi|la
cases.
Tho prisoner was remauded, and the petition
dismissed.