The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1872-02-22
IN ~ LA


pos Sc jasti8casiau Is themselves. s.
"a useAcn ilcF fafer5an. ioeashlisha
precedent = gui3o aBd an authority ie
= Qeoiei bsf5fe ilr sague eu8 other
courts far rme q come. PrUyiaemially.
ca tie liberty of TIC citizen. the court
seem TO have intended never 60 iucnr The
Stigma % hsyiag ISIS decision quoted
Sc have read somewhere that rets5a
Wsa ne "a 81 tha Jaw. ID this decision
a3i oab : there 80 reason given, but an
reason. which s ,he Iiie % Us law, pur-
Is suppressed by lie court, q though
d could moi ,apd thc test and Ugh, ~ IL
own liie Il nnot possible THAI tie SUI
rums Court denied both respondents
bail from consideration ~ ne facts
Ng indeed; 70 charge them With that,
would mpeaeh their understanding. We
are aware iAat Ia view Of the former pub
liesiiou u lbe evidence, and 10 View Of
,Ac Impending Trial, iti. not desirable to
give rehearsal Of those facts, however
Ufief We should be accused Of endeav-
orIng . prejudice The public mind wonld
Thai The court bad duly considered this
question Of pteiadile, By their decision
they have unnecessarily created more
prejudice against the prisoner than all
ihe writer's 10 Vermont could do IN their
favor. The popular mind may very just
ly conclude that the court must have
found against both respondents the elc-
ments u wilful aud corrupt murder, OF
they would have admitted them to bail.
Ana yet with an opportunity Of knowing
The facts equally with the court, how that
can be they cannot possibly conceive.
And 20 both court aud their decision are
regarded as blended into one iusoluble,
inexplicable doubt. Was there any want
Of form, or any irregularty in the pro-
cecdngs, to induce the court 10 make the
decision they did, If SO, is that decision
fualy Then why, as in other cases, are
we not entitled to know the grounds of
that decision and II not conclusive, af-
forded the opportunity OF renewing the
application in less Objectionable form?
We are aware that in the action of book
account, when party refuses TO answer
question, the law mterprets his refusal
into an answer strongly against him.
Standing mute as a criminal, the law now
maciously determines his silence to mean
"not guilty" but persistent reticence Of
Tie court means what?
From a remark that was madeer cdtde-
dra, though not by the Supreme Court
we conjecture one ground Of their deci-
sion was, that the case toas withom pre-
cedent, Suppose it was; does it follow
that everything without precedent is
wrong and illegal? Better far to strike
ont on new ground than even to follow a
precedent without principle. Many of
Lord Mansfeld's decisions were without
precedent, but replete with principles,
which the courts Of the present day are
proud to adopt. Any doubts as to pre-
cedent or anything else, we insist should
be considered on the side of innocence
and liberty, and not in favor Of crime
and incarceration.
Another conjectura ground is that the
Court refused to 90 behind the finding of
the Court Of Inquiry, if his papers are
correct; and somebody has been killed, or
some act done, upon which that finding
might be, however illegally, predicated.
This doctrine would leave the accused in
all cases Of homicide, no matter how JUS
titlable or accidental, to the august mercy
of the justice of the peace whom some as
piring town grand juror,o or some catering
States Attorney might see fit to select.
The great writ of hadedS corpus becomes
paralDzed, and the interference of the
Supreme Court powerless, by the grave
finding Of justice of the peace over a
homicide. How preposterous This doc
trine, if it ever obtained, must have be-
longed to barbarous times; If it has a
precedent il must have originated in Old
Baily, and the man who would advance
il at this age must be controlled by con-
uacted and illiberal ideas. II is not con-
sistent with the genius and institutions of
a free people; it does not comport with
either the letter or spirit of the statute
and IS far removed from the simplicity of
common sense.
We admit that where an inferior court
has confined refractory witness, or just
ly Imprisoned person for contempt, re-
lief by habeas corpus has been denied, |
and the court below left IN the exercise Of
those coerciye and selfprotecting powers
which are necessarily incident TO every
court--and especially when neither NAL
ice nor injustice appears. But these in
stances are in no sense parallel, and in no
wise analogous 10 the case under contem-
plation.
But, Mr.. Editor, the case Of Lawrence
and Farwell is one of great hardship to
them, and an important one to the poo-
pie il bears heavily upon every citizen
of the state. BY II the great writ OF babe
as corpus has been Invested Of much Of
Its power and utility. II might be furth.
CT and finally suspended without produe-
ing any serious commotion. We have Il .
now only ia name. lthas become souud-
ing brass and a tinkling cymbal.
flour statutes IN relation to this great
writ are not sufficiently explicit, or the .
course OF proceeding under II too meagre
aud indefinite, let rs see to II next fall \
and supply the necessary legislation. Let 4