The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-05-07

" the crime. What does the state do to
"protect the person accused by them
"against any conspiracy they may have
" formed to convict him on manufactured
" evidence The state allows the accused
" ttoenty dollars for the expenses of his de-
" Tense, and the nominal fees to witnesses
"cslled by him This, is IN arbitrary
" statute. Nobody is authorized to in
" crease the amount, no matter what the
" circumstances of the case may be-"
AS matter of fact and law, there is Just
as much authority for offering reward
for the acquittal Of man charged with
murder or other crime, as there is for offer
ing reward for the arrest and conviction
of murderer. There is no law in Yer
mont, general or special, which authorizes
the offering of a reward for the arrest and
conviction ofla murderer or other criminal
Neither the state, town, city or village,
is authorized to offer such reward,
neither is the governor or other state off,
Ger, county, town, city or village officer
or board of officers. Take this very Phair
case The offer of a reward by the board
of selectmen of the town of Rutland was
unauthorized, and the town of Rutland
was not legally liable to pay it. The vote
Of the town of Rutland, if any such for
NAL vote there was, was without authority
and void. The tax assessed for its pay
ment was illegal and could not have been
collected, if tax payer had resisted its
payment. The several town orders drawn
for the payment of the reward were, also,
illegal and unauthorized, and the town
treasurer had no power or authority to pay
them, neither could suit at law have been
maintained against the town of Rutland
for their payment.
The selectmen Of the town of Rutland
had exactly the same power and authority
no more and no less-to place twenty
five hundred or ten thousand dollars at the
disposal of Pbalr as they had to offer and
pay reward of twenty-five hundred dol
lars for the arrest and conviction of the
murderer of Anna Freeze. A town order
drawn in the one case would have been just
as valid and binding on the town as in the
other, and tax assessed for the one pur-
pose would have been just as legal and
binding as in the other. The one act was
invalid, illegal and unauthorized, and
would have been invalid, illegal and
unauthorized in the other. The legis-
islature alone has the power to au-
| thorize reward for the arrest and
conviction of murderer, and it has, also,
the power to place at the disposal of per-
son charged with crime just such sum as it
pleases So the state and the accused, SO
far as the laos of Vermont provide, stand
precisely on the same footing.
In regard to the procuring of witnesses,
the state and the accused, also, are on the
same footing. In neither case. does the state
in the first instance, pay anything but "the
"nominal legal fees to witnesses. "And these
fees will compel the attendance of witness
es who residesswi the state. In this
Phair case, special act of the legislature
was necessary to pay the witnesses from
without the state more than "nominal legal
" fees"-and that body was open to SINH
lar application from Phair.
So too in reference to attorney fees. The
legislature passed special act paying ono
of the counsel Cor the state, and it had full
power to grant ample compensation tc
Phairs couasel, if application had beer
made therefor. The fact is that the laws
of Vermont are just as liberal to persons
accused Of crime as they are to the officers
prosecuting persons charged with crime.
In view of this, the structures of the Ad
vertt,er are unfounded and uncalled for
but if it desires to hold the laws and legisla
tors of Vermont up to ridicule, and, at tn,
same time, keep within the facts, it will
find ample scope in the act of 1872, whicl
places the limit of twenty dollars on tn
fee which the county and supreme court
can allow to counsel assigned for the de
Tense of person charged with murder, al
though the trial may occupy weeks, Will
it authorizes justices of the peace to assigl
counsel and allow a fee of five dollar
where person is charged simply with in
toxication or breach of the peace-an
under this authority, as has been the cas-
in Rutland, the fee allowed to the assigne
counsel for the defense is three fold that a
lowed to the counsel for the state.