The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1867-02-06

THE AMERICAN LAW REVIEW for Janua-
ry, published by Little, Brown 6 Co., of
Boston. Mass, has come to hand. It con-
tains much valuable and interesting matter.
We extract the following concerning the
trial of Mr.. Davis, given in its summary Of
events:
The continued postponement of the trial
OF this State prisoner has been the subject |
of bitter alteration. The recent changes
made in the United States circuits seem to |
have furnished good technical excuse for
holding no term OF the circuit court in Vir- |
ginia this autumn. We do not desire here |
to discuss the question, whether Mr.. Davis |
should OF should not be brought to trial i;
but we shall submit a few suggestions con-
cernngg the trial, which, however, are per-
haps too selfevident, so far as the profession
is concerned, to need discussion.
In regard to all criminal cases, the same
division OF responsibility between the exec
utive and judicial departments of govern
ment can be made. 1t is for the executive
department, through its prosecuting officers
to decide what criminal charges shall be /
prosecuted, and what ones shallbe abandon
ed. A judge has nothing to do with this,
and cannot properly interfere with it. His
duty is simply to try the cases brought be-
fore him. A prisoner undoubtedly has
right to speedy trial; but, if the govern
ment defer the trial, objection can only come
from the prisoner himself And if he,
through his counsel, does not bring it to the
attention of the court, it is difficult to see
what reason the judge has to interfere"
"When Chief Justice Chase holds the cir
cult court for the district in which Davis is,
it will be his duty to give all the instruct
ions to the grand inquest required to vindi-
cate the laws Of the United States, and to
try all prisoners placed at the bar for trial.
II the Government, for reasons of Its own
does not call up the case of Mr.. Davis, his
counsel can demand speedy trial and the
judge has then to determine whether the tri-
al shall proceed or not. But in the case of a
prisoner defended by eminent counsel, and
into whose case enter grave questions of
State, for the court of itself to move to bring
about a trial which is not sought for either
by the Government or the prisoner, would
be, VIC apprehend, generally regarded as
wholly unwarrantable. a
The questions of whether Davis is new re-
tained in such manner as to place him out
side the jurisdiction of the court, and of how
far the relations of Virginia to the General
Government may have heretofore rendered
it improper to hold a civil court there, we
do not intend to touch upon. Whether Da.
: Wis shall be brought to trial is almost purely
political question, to be decided by the
executive department of the Government
When he is brought to trial, the conduct of
the case, until u verdict is rendered, is mat
ter of legal procedure for which the Judges
are responsible, subject to the right of the gov
eminent counsel to abandon the case, if in
their judgment it is best to do so. But some
persons seem to forget, that, while the laws
provide for the trial and punishment of per-
) sons guilty of crimes, they likewise have evel
left it to the Government I'M their discretion
! ! to decide what cases shall be prosecuted, and
! what ones abandoned and the responsible
. ty thus imposed must be borne, by the Gov.
: ernment, and can be shifted on no one else.'
And the two items following which are Of
{ interest:
, "EvIDENCE OF CRIM1NALs-The law ol
| Massachusetts, permitting criminals to testi
g fy has been in operation for several months
g but we do not know that the profession OF
l the public has arrived at any settled conclu
J sion on the success of the experiment. Ii
l the next number we hope to insert an article
: by learned judge of much experience, wht
: takes ground against the innovation. W,
, must say, however that, for our own part
l we are inclined to believe in the good result
D of the law and this belief is much strength
G ened by seeing its application in late capi
s tai case where, after the accused had testi
: fed, the impossibility of the Government
: succeeding became SO apparent that the at
torney general abandoned the prosecution
We have always been of opinion, that tn
e law permitting criminals to testify would ait
s in the detection of guilt; we are now dispo
sed to think that it will be equally service
n able for the protection of innocence"
e SALARIES OF ENGLISH JUDGEs.-Th
: salary of the Lord Chancellor is 10000
: year. Those of the Lords Justices and tn
: Master of the Rolls $4,000 each. and of til
: Vice-Chancellors $4,000. The Lord Chic
f Justice of the Queens Bench has $4,000
e year, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common
: Pleas and Lord Chief Baron 81, 900 each, an,
D the Puisne Judges of these courts $500
v each. This last amount is also the salary O
e the Judge of the Court of Admiralty and @
= the Courts of Probate and of Divorce an,
s Matrimonial Causes. A judges retirin,
r pension is one-half his salary"
f1iir 4ise