The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-11-05

one of the few causes cele6ye, in this coun-
try, of the last century. Therein, it was
claimed that Hauer having been discharged
by reason of a defect in former ndict
ment, but without trial, could not again
be "put in jeopardy Indeed Judge
Story decided-so late as 1s34-that after
the trial of respondent by competent
jury, upon good indictment, which re-
suited in conviction, there could be no
new trial granted, no matter what errors
might have interviewed, because the accused
could not be "twice put in jeopardy"
This was in q case in the United States cir
cult court at Boston, and has not been fol-
lowed as a safe precedent.
Notwithstanding this principle has been
for so many years acknowledged and is
part of the constitution of the United
States-which is the supreme law of the
land--yet, when it was announced that
one of the jurors in the Stokes case had, as
it was alleged, been bribed in the interest
of the prisoner, the several New York
newspapers, at once, despatched reporters
to the district attorneys office to ascertain
if the effect would be to set aside the ver-
dict of manslaughtcr and allow the state
to, again, put him in jeopardy of his life.
The context of the "fifth amendment"
shows that its trainers did not intend to an
nouncc a new proposition, but that it was
merely declaratory of well known and long
established principles. Thus it provides
that no person shall be held to answer for
a capital crime except upon due present
ment or Indictment shall not be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due
process of law and that private property
shall not be taken for public use without
just cOmpensaton-all of acknowledged
validity, in force before the settlement of
the country, and the foundations of British
liberty. Being so old, so well established,
so vital, ii is passing strange that intelligent
men, in almost the last quarter of the nine
teenth century, should have been Ignorant
thcreof-but such seems to have been the
case. AS we said in the outset, ii is found
ed upon the divine prcccpt that il were
better that ninety and nlnc guilty persons
should escape than that one innocent man
should suffer SO sacred is the principle
held, as involving personal liberty, that
after verdict of acquittal has been rem
dcrcd, an avowal of guilt would not en-
able the state to try and punish the guilty
man. Such an instance has, in fact oc-
CURED in our country's history. A man,
indicted for murder, was acquitted by the
jury for want of sufficient evidence, and
was, of course, discharged With an
cfirontcry and dcpravity, hardly to be CON
ccived of, before leaving the court room, he
confessed to the crime, narratng all the
horrid details, evincing an extraordinarily
secrctvc and fiendish disposition, and
closed by saying that he had "laid in wait
for his victim for weeks and months be-
fore the crime was consummated He left
the court of law and justice free man,
and the law and courts were powercss to
deal with him. 1t may seem a rcproach to
the administration of justice that such
should be the case but it is far better so
than that an innocent life should perish on
the scaffold, or that he should be liable at
every new wave of popular excitement, to
be again and again called upon to make his
defense