The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-04-08
COURTS OF EXAMINATION.

We give place, this morning, somewhat
reluctantly, to another communication rel
! alive to the alleged infanticidc at Weston.
| The writer seems to be impressed with the
! innocence of IIeselton, now confined in
| jail charged with the commission of the
| crime, but entirely unfamiliar with the ma
| ture of courts of examination. Heselton may
| be lnnoccnt-we trust that he is-but we
hardly deem 1t proper to make the question
| of his guilt or innocence subject of news
paper discussion. The decision of the JUS
tice has RENTED that question to the courts
for determination. He is to be presumed
innocent until he is proved guilty. That
presumption attaches to him until it Is
overthrown by competent proof. He will
be tried by jury of his country, and may
God grant him a safe deliverance. The
only effect of public discussion, now,
would be to manufacture public opinion ;
and the country has seen, during the past
year, too much of the evil effects of such
attempts to make Vermonters particularly
anxious to bring such pressure to bear on
her courts. Before Heselton's arrest the
case was different Whether Justly or not,
there was a wide spread conviction that the
authorities of Weston and of Windsor
county were negligent in the matter.
There was mystery relative to the death
of the child, which could only be cleared,
If it could be cleared at all, by judicial
investigation. 1t was the province of a
court of examination to investigate the
matter. 1t was, then, the duty Of the pub
lie press to urge an investigation and all
facts, or alleged facts, bearing upon the
matter, were proper subjects of comment
as tending to show due diligence, or negli-
gcncc, on the part of the proper authori-
ties. In that view, and to that end we
opened our columns to both sides
But when the authorities were prepared
to act, when they did act, then the time
for discussion was over. The public then
wanted facts not discusson-and we have,
exclusively of all other newspapers, furn-
ished the facts. Our correspondent in his
zeal, lawyer though he seems to be, en-
tirely misapprehends the province of these
courts of examination. He seems to think
mat 1t is their right and duty to pass final
~ upon the question of guilt or innocence
OF an accused. We grant him that, where
innocence plainly appears, these courts
ought to discharge but not otherwise. The
hearing is merely preliminary. The court
occupies itself with only two questions
first, has crime been committed? second,
is there reasonable probability that the
accused is guilty? These questions arc to
be determined upon balance of proof
not with absolute certainty or beyond a
reasonable doubt, as is the case with
the final trial before a jury. With
out assuming the guilt of Heselton,
and even admitting the probability of his
final acquital, we believe that the decision
of the justice was right, proper, legal
we refer to his conclusions, not to the
statement thereof. Indeed, we do not see
how it could have been different. 1t was
conceded that the childs death was oc-
casioned by violence, either premedtated
or accidental it was shrouded in mystery;
and only one or two persons were in
situation to explain it. The death was not
explained, and the medical testimony
seemed to show that the theory of acct
dent was, to says the least, problematical,
and that crime had probably been COM
mitted. This was all that the examining
magistrate was bound to find as to the
crime. If a crime had been committed,
did not all of the testimony show it was
either committed by, or in the presence of,
the accused? If so, and such aoas the
proof, the magistrate could only find that
there was reasonable probability of the
guilt of the accused and he must hold him
for trial. This was the whole of his duty,
and he discharged it,