The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1860-08-31
Reply to Report relatin. to District Nos.

W
MARK c. WEBSTER.
Danville, Aug. -, 1850.
Reply to Report relatin. to District NO.9.
Matters of public nature affecting the interest
of the public always open to discussion, which
leads me to notice the Grand Jury "report rela-
ting to School District No 9. in Danville," pub
hshcd in the Caledonian Of July 6. 1860
have had some experience in serving as a
member upon the Grand Inquest Of the County.
and though am not learned i'll the laws Of the
country, l had always been impressed with the
delusion until l this "report.') that the
counsel" of the Grand Jury. when in secret con-
clave upon the conduct Of their fellow man, was
to be kept secret.
supposed too that the Grand Jury could in
dict or present men men for the coinmlS sion OF
crime but did not know before, that they could
set in secret Judgment and listen to the dictates
of false accuscrs and make public reports of
their opinion" concerning the acts. conduct. be-
haviOr, character, morals and demeanor of their
fellow man. But presumiLg that such a body
would exercise no power or preroSatlve not be-
longing to it, it follows that when they ind that
they cannot or ought not to indict man and pre-
sent him to the court for trial. they will report
him." not to the court where he 'can have
hearing on the report. - but in the newspaper
And this mode Of accusation by public printed
report has this peculiar advantage. that the
court has no jurisdiction of it. and the impOT'-
s h. oI L no hc,r I'd nv
himself and his counsel. i'll demanding the cause
and nature of his accusation, that he be confront
ed with the Witnesses his call for evidence in his
favor. and public trial by an impartial jury is all
avoided as non essential formalities for the pro.
lection Of personal liberty. personal security and
private reputation.
This mode new to mel of ndctng man by
published report" has another feature, highly
charac teristic of an enlightened republican gov
ernment. watchful and Jealous of the rights ofthc
citizen in that it precude> the accused from any
resistance or defense. and cCn.pelS him TO suffer
passively without tfou5!iag his accu>ers 20 maze
good their accusation.
All these great advantages flow from this new
mode of presenting by report, and long As i
have lived it seems surprising that these benign
results never occurred to my mind before.
And while upon the subject Of the "repor..' |
will say that it is obvious that the practice may
be benefcially extended much farther. without
any enlargement of the power Of the Grand In
quest.
For instance, set of ''greusrfs'' such us'l-
IL L ~. l l..
quest. complain of man-the Grand Inquest
think the evidence is insufficient to accuse him
to the court for trial, but they indict by "rc-
port and give their "opinion' that his conduc,
was against public policy" and thus drag him
before the public. And how beneficial it would
be for the Grand Inquest at each annual session
to make list Of all iii the county tsave those
who are known to be Incapable Of crne.l and
report them, and warn them tina! il they have
or shall commit such and such offences. they VIII
ndct them unless their offences have been''barr-
ed" by former trial and acquittal by jury, for
mer conviction and expiration.
A former conviction. am inf0rmed.i> no more
bar than former acquittll. why not (when the
Grand Inquest have but little or nothing to dc
but to see if somebody uW do son,ethiAy) ere
port" all who have ever been convicted as vel
as those acquitted. that il for these bars
eve should have found a bill against them," fol
their several offences.
Good reason, to be sure. but then it would
show their diStaste Of crime, and manifest NOR
al tone to vindicate and uphold the law
~. 7
ny new inventions and good ones. are being
brought out. have said before that | did not
know but the counsel of the Grand Inquest was
to be kept secret, and have heard the lawyer,
say something like this. that man was not O.
bliged to testify against himself. but after my ac
cusers have been before them, and they had heart
the evidence in behalf Of the state then they, tit
"Grand Inquest" called me into their presence
required me to be sworn and give evidence in re-
lation to the charge then pending before them a
gainst me for disturbing the school in DiStric
No. 9. in Danvile. This my counsel told me wa
wrong. that had no right or privilege to b,
heard before the Grand Inquest and that the,
had no right to require to furnish evidence
for them to find bill on But it proved other
wise, and that lawyers are as often mistaken a
otherwise. And do not complain of this, for
hold to fair play, and if man is presented to thu
Grand Jury for crime give him reasonable 10
tice and pay his travel and attendance, and le
him come in and whether he has any
thing to say why he should not be presented in
dicted or reported. Still there seems somethin!
odd TO require man to testify against himsel
before the Grand Jury. and equally so to swea
him in his own behalf.
If had known that the Grand Inquest woult
indict or report US. would have proposed to
have made trade with the Grand Inquest whel
was before them, to withdraw the bar erected
BY our former acquittal. and been indicted. an,
then been acquitted again on trial. than to b.
reported viOlators of law and pubic polio,
in a manner that Precludes our defense,
Why should not the Grand Inquest in ever
instance when they are in secret session upon
man. listening to the expressions of private ha
tired and malevolence express their views, an
establish universal censorship:
1t is true that myself and son were prosecute
in March last for disturbing the District Schoo
in our District. And we were tried at Danyil