The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-05-22
..TWICE PIT I'M JEOPARDY

inc CONSTITUTION and laws as to authorize
the hanging OF man for murder, as the
governor of Vermont did TO save one from
the gallows. One Buzzel was placed on
trial for murder, and the jury, giving him
the benefit of doubt which was supposed
to exist, acquitted him, and he was dis.
charged. Since that time, and within a
few weeks, one Cook has been arrested for
the same murder, and has confessed that
he fired the fatal shot, Buzzell being pres-
edit, aiding, abetting and assisting and
that the murder was committed by the
procurement of Buzzell, he being present
at the time Of its commission, and direct.
ing the firing of the shot which resulted in
the death of the victim.
Upon this state of facts, the people of
New Hampshire are naturally desrous that
Buzzell shall suffer for lis crime, and so a
facile attorney general has been found who
decides that, notwithstanding his acquittal,
he may be still tried, convicted and pun
ished as an accessory before the fact Of the
murder. The constitution OF the United
States, following the common law, declares
that no person shall "for the same offense,
be twice put in jeopardy of life and
limb" The meaning of this clause, as
most commentators are agreed, is that
party shall not be tried a second time for
the same offense, after he has been once
convicted or acquitted of the offense
charged by the verdict of jury, and judy
ment has passed thereon for or against him.
The constitution of New Hampshire, is to
the same effect, the sixteenth article of its
bill of rights declaring that mo subject
shall be liable to be tried, after an &C
"quittal, for the same crime or offense."
The only difference, as will be noticed, be-
tween the national and state constitutions
is, that in the former the prohibition ex-
tends only to capital offenses, while in the
latter it extends to all classes of crimes and
misdemeanors.
The letter and spirit of both the national
and state constitutions, therefore, prohibit
the trial of Buzzsll for the murder of
which he has been once acquitted. That
he is guilty-and there seems no question
as to his guilt-makeI no difference. His
acquttal is an absolute bur to a second
trial, and he is as free from the clni eauen-
ces of his crime as though Q were limo
cent. Can the attorney general of New
Hampshire, by changing the form of the
indictment, from tina. of murder to acces-
sorry to the murder, alter this wise and salu-
tary provision of the constitution? We
call 1t wise and salutary provision, be-
cause 1t is better that ninety and nine guilty
persons should escape than that one inno-
cent person should suffer; because the his
tory OF the criminal law in Great Britain
under the Infamous Jefferles showed the
necessity OF such provision; and became
public policy, as well as individual protec-
ton' demands that an end be put TO cnmi.
nal prosecutions after one full and fair trial
by an impartial jury, and judgment rem
dered on their verdict.
This question has been up in various
forms in several of the states and 1t has
been decided by the highest courts of
Georgia and Massachusetts that where the
proof shows the second case to be the same