Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1878-10-09

PRISON SYSTEM AND CRIMINAL LAWS.
1t is \ sad commentary upon our prison system,
that under it the rule has been, once a criminal
always a criminal, and that the convict thereby
has been confirmed in his criminal tendencies
rather than the reverse.
MY more intimate connection with and observa-
ton of its administration during the two years
now closing has but strengthened and confirmed
the views expressed in my former message and
impressed NJ ON me the conviction that the further
carrying out of the humane and reiormatory
measures already so happily begun, will result in
good both to the inmates of the prison and to the
state at large.
1t this age, when the deaf and dumb are taught
to converse freely, the blind to read and write
and when the faint gmmering intellect of the fee
ble-minded and idiutcis is developed and strength
ened into fair intelligence, it would seem that IA
sovereign state with all its resources, might be
able to turn back from vice and restore to virtue
youth, many of whom have been brought to the
commission of crime more by evil associates and
untoward circumstances, than by innate criminal
disposition. To this end, ought not our criminal
laws to have most careful revision Ought not
the state TO own our comfy jails, making them
simply houses of detention for the safe custody
of prisoners awaiting examination or trial? Ought
not the State Prison accommodations to be en-
aTged, making it possible for the convicts to be
classified and more thoroughly disciplined and
| reformed
REPRIEvE OF JOHN p. PHAIR.
| On the day appointed for the execution of John
| L. Phalr, April u, 1871, ana only an hour OF two
before the execution was to take place a telegram
was received from NJ. c. downing, of Boston,
sent by advice of the chief of police saying that
| he thought he saw and conversed with Mr. Phair
| on the train coming from Providence to Boston on
the next day following the murder of Mrs Frieze;
and also telegram from Charles IL Taylor,
manager of the Boston Globe vouching that Mr..
| Downing was a reliable man.
Phair left Rutland by the early train on the
morning of the murder, and went to Boston. Al
the trial, and in statement which he had caused
to be published, he claimed that he did not stoE
in Boston, but went directly through to Provi.
dence, stopped over night and returned to Boston
the next forenoon.
The strong evidence OF the trial against him
showed that he, under the name of T., +
smith, occupied room that night at the Adams
| House in Boston, ill which, after he left was
found part of shawl, which was identified n,
having belonged to the murdered woman, and
that under the same name the next morning he
pawned in one place watch and in another al
opera glass and some riugs, which were also iden
titled as having belonged TO her. He could moi
have done this II he went to Providence and re
turned as he claimed, and as Mr. Downing's ties
timony tended TO show. There WAS no time fol
investigation. deemed it my duty to stay tn,
execution of the sentence for a short time anC
did so until the fourth day of May following
The matter was OF so much importance, no
only to Phair but 10 the state that / thought al
investigation should be had by those acquaintet
with the facts and circumstances attending tn,
murder and trial, and accordingly requested f.. }
Ormsbee, Esq, the States Attorney nnder whom
the conviction was had, and W. &. Veazey, Esq.
one OF Phairs attorneys at the trial, to procee,
TO Boston and Providence and take such evdenc
AS they might find bearing upon this claim. Thi
testimony, together with additional evidence, /
herewith transmitted. Petitions were presente,
for a further reprieve, signed by many leadin
and highly respectable citizens OF the state. Man
letters were also received from well known AM
prominent professional business men, urging tn
reprieve. felt il to be my duty TO grant the re
quest A further stay OF the execution of the sen
tence was ordered until the first Friday OF April
=, A. d, 1879 ! think that the question presente
by this evidence is for judicial investigation an
determination. II Phar is guilty he should sui
fer the penalty. II not guilty he should be set
liberty.
o When the question arose, the time limited by III
statute Tor the presentation of petition for ne'
, trial had elapsed Until quite recently, the tim
q in which such petitions must be brought did nc
/ eapse before the execution of the sentence /
n such cases. by an extension of the time whic
, must intervene in capital cases between the sci
lence and execution, under the present law, ther
is now a time shortly before the execution, |
which person under sentence of death, whatevt
+ the developments, has not the right TO bring
= petition for new trial This condition of III
law has probably been oecasoned inadyertentl
by the change from the annual 10 the bennii
u SYSTEM thlnk this IL defect in the law. Whe
life IL the penalty, the state cannot afford to max