The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-04-06

sound To be that produced by the running
"of train, but no train was duo at that
''timc. There was, in fact, n general shak-
cling up of things. a few earthquakes
"have, at various times. occurred in Ten
"nessce, but none that brought about
"worsc results than that in 1911, when the
"carlh sank and Rcclloot Lake was made"
With this authoritative statement from
such source, we know all about the Con-
neC,cut election.
GOOD SEED RUT POOR FRUIT.
Milton Is a small town, of some two
thousand inhabitants, in Chiitcnden coun-
ty, distant some twcnty-four miles from
Montpelier The historian thereof states
that ''ihc surface of the town Is somewhat
uneven" and the past two or three months
indicate that the administration of the law
is, also. somewhat uneven" We had oc-
casion, some time ago. to comment with
something OF severity upon the course pur-
sued in the prosecution Of hotel keeper OF
| that town, and now similar prosecution,
| for q similar offence, against hotel keep
| crwe think the same one-prescnts alto
gcther y. different phase. One "A. n.
Austin, hotel keeper at Milton" was pro-
secuted for a violation of the law relating
to the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and
was. II We may believe, as we do believe,
the reports Of the trial, acquitted contrary
to the evidence and in spite Of the law. 1t
is sts;ed'thai thirty-sixI distinct offences
| were proven, and that the counsel for the
''hotcl Keeper argued ta the jury, among
| other things, az a proposition Of lar that
"cYcA il the supreme court had decided
I" that such was not the law, the jury were
"no' bound by il, being judges Of tho law
" and facts, and that they had tho power
" 70 anuihilato the statute itself as far las
-" this case WAS concerned We do not
refer TO the other points made because it Is
| understood that IL was almost solely upon
this ground that the jury came 20 their YER
diet. Indeed the Burlington Free Press
in commenting cditOrially upon the remark
able result and the opinion OF the citizens
of Milton thereon, says, ''ihat II WAS due
t, the acceptance (honce;, as thcy belcve)
'by the jury Of tho extraordinary claim
made by the counsel Tor the defence,
"that the jury had the right to nullify the
" decision Of the supreme court and make
/" that law which the highest court in the
al state had decided 20 be not law" We
do not propose to defend this verdict
of the jury, for tho simple reason that,
| upon the facts MS stated. il is tndef6na5e--
as we thought the course OF The prosecutor
| in the other case. We go, even, further
| in this case and say that i! il perfectly in
| comprehensive to our mind how one of
those jurors could have rccOncled such a
verdict with their oaths, their consciences
or their duties as good citizens But this
| quoted 20 very extraordinary" Taking
| it IN its true intent and meaning ia it not
good, safe law? Ia not Il principle OF law
as old almost as law itself, dating back
prior to any European discovery or occupa-
| ton Of this continent, and as sacred az that
other principle, that an accused person
shall be deemed innocent until he is proved
guilty. 1t may be, and wo believe it is
true, that this jury decided that to be law
which was not law--but that il not fault
with the principle, only with the human
instrumentalities through whom 1t was ex.
ercised. The seed WAS Of the best, even
| though It brought forth eour, unsightly
fruit.
| We arc told in the oldest and most au-
| thoritatiye Of law books that it were better
that ninety and nine guilty persons should
escape than that one innocent person should
suffer. Hume, in speaking of the reign of
Alfred, says Of trial by jury, that it is IAN
institution admirable in itself, and the best
calculated Tor the preservation of liberty
and The administration Of justice that ever
was DEVISED by the Wit Of man." Upon
these two propositions We placed ourself,
and, although thcy may so seem, they are
not foreign to the subject In hand. 1t was
to secure immunity to the innocent not aid
in the escape Of the guilty, as alec, "for
the preservation Of our liberty" that Jurors
'cere mode in cytmin0l coses ,judges Of the ia,o
as rel NJ cf Tho .tacts. This principal is
now, and ever has been, as much part of
our judicial system, as binding upon courts.
and as sacred, as any statute law or, even,
the constitution itself If, therefore,
violation Of the liquor Law, 70 called for
short, is crime, then the gist of the pro-
position quoted WAS good law. The propo-
sition Is simply this gentlemen of the
jury, you are in this case the sole Judges of
the law We take it, moreover, that
where one case can be found Of the acquit-
tai of "A guilty person on this humane pro-
vision, nnety-ninc can be found in which
an innocent accused person has been pro-
tccted from oppression. For years, it was
the only safety OF the English subject. II
has, also, protected many an American
citizen from the despotic power OF unjust
judges. SO long as human nature remains
as it is such a provision is IN abso-
Lutte necessity. With the liability
of having imposed upon ps such
judges as Cardoz0 Barnard and others
who have sulllcd the judicial crminc In
New York, and those who have prostituted
the holy name of justice, for n few paltry
dollars, as judges of the United States
courts in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and
elsewhere, the preservation of liberty" in
certain parts Of the country and the just
rights Of an accused person can only be &C.
cured by such a provision. Wherein would
the people suffer the greater wrong THAT
the state treasury should receive two hun
drcd and scyeAty dollars, and the "com-
plhlnant' ninety dollars, from this "NIilton