Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1880-10-20

ference committee may be appointed by the
house and the subject discussed 1t was an i'm
portant matter and worthy Of due consideration
Mr. COLBURN Of Springfield believed that the
rule, adopted by the senate, would make ex-
pense by wasting the time OF the house In debate
as to whether bill should be engrossed or not
lie supported Mr.. Fifield in his proposal OF COM
mittee OF conference.
Mr. PAGE withdrew his motion by unanimous
consent and acquesced in the suggestion Of a
conference committee
Mr. PALMER OF Waterbury asked that Mr..
fifield explain the motive Of his suggestion.
Mr. FIFIELD showed the advantage of a confer
ence committee. He then gave brief history Of
the practice OF engrossment Until 1871 the method
now recommended In the 9th rule was In vogue;
since then the present mode Of having bills en-
crossed In the secretary of states office after they
have been passed. Mr.. Fiield then moved that
the house adhere to its proposal OF amendment,
and ask committee of conference, consisting of
three members of the house. The motion was
carried, and the speaker named such COM
mittee on the part OF the house, Messrs Page
of Rutland Howe OF Ludlow and Fifield of Mont
peer
From the judiciary committee, by MT Taft of
Burlington, II. 46, relating to the Jurisdiction OF
the city court Of Burlington, recommending its
passage. Read third time and passed.
On motion Of Mr.. CURTIS Of Georgia, adj
House-Afternoon.
Report-From judiciary committee, by Mr.
Fiield, in favor OF H. 2, authorizing states attor
neys to prosecute by information in all cases
where grand jures may find indictments, and in
vesting states attorneys with all the duties and
inquiries now performed by such grand juries
Mr.. FIFIEI.D explained the merits and effects
OF the bill, and considered the objections against
it, lie did not believe in abOlishng the grand
jury and leaving everything in the hands OF one
man to prosecute That was too much power to be
lodged in any one Individual. The best way was
to allow every prosecution to be founded upon in
formation, and yet to leave in the county courts
the power to call out the grand jury at any time
when 1t may be necessary. With this safeguard
the benefits of the bill were obvious. The grand
jury, under the present system set stately only
once year, and a man arrested for a felony, the
punishment for which exceeds seven years i'm
prisonment, might remain for eleven months be-
fore ne could be indicted and tried II the bill
reported by the committee was passed, the states
attorneys could come into court at once after his
arrest, file an information, and in ten days his
case could be disposed Of. the saving in expense
would be great, and that was an important con-
sideration. BY retaining the grand jury system,
but making its use discretionary, the states
attorney can be supervised in his conduct and any
derections of duty on his part can be restrained.
Mr. BROWN of Grand Isle was opposed to the
project contemplated by the bill. lie thought
that nothing guarded the liberty Of the individual
like the grand jury system. The greatest objec-
ton to it was the expense, but he for one was
willing to defray the expense He considered it
too hazardous to lodge in one man the power to
wreak his vengeance upon his neighbor. The
grand jury, to his knowledge, had saved many
innocent men in his county from the disgrace of
an indictment II the present bill became law,
the custom Of sessions Of the grand jury would
fall into dsuse, the judges would not call it
out except for murder, and the states attorneys
would have the liberty OF his fellow citizens under
his control
Mr.. THOMPSON of Irasburgh said that the
bill did not abolish the grand jury but simply en-
larged the power OF states attorneys so 10 give
them concurrent jurisdiction with the grand jury
in regard TO the prosecution for all crimes. The
att. had t1a info
tions where punishment did not exceed seven
years in the state prison. lie thought that the
practical workings of this bill would lead to the
election Of ADLER men to the office OF state attor-
ney, who would be responsible to the people for
their acts and the people would hold them to
strict account. lie agreed with Mr. fitield as to
the evil effect Of criminals remaining in jail
many months awaiting indictments. II was better
for us to allow states attorneys to file nforma-
tons at the next term OF the county court and
have the case ended. The objection of the gen
tleman from Grand Isle that the bill would lead
to personal persecution by states attorneys was
chimerical-such a proceeding would end the ca
reer of any man forever This plan of doing
away with the long annual sessions OF grand jul
ries lay at the very door of retrenchment, and 1t
seemed to him to be practical step in the right
direction. lie hoped the report Of the committee
would be adopted,
Mr.. SMITH of St. Johnsbury hoped the report
would be adopted because it would dispose of
criminal business quickly. There is a large class
of criminals who always endeavored to postpone
trial in hopes that after awhile the witnesses
would disappear, After man had been in Jail
nearly year, and as soon as he cosld be indicted
by the grand jury, the witnesses were apt TO be
disposed Of, and hence conviction was impossible.
/ This bill would save great expense and lead "
quick trials. II the states attorneys did not per-
form their duties the grand jury could remedy
the neglect, since it would be called together once
| year, as now.
Mr. BROWN said that his fear was not that
the prosecutions under this bill would not be
enough, but that they would be too frequent
| that individual malace would invite many prose
cutions which the grand jury would ignore.
| Under the present law witnesses could be bound
up to appear whenever the grand jury should
meet, so that the point made by the gentleman
from St Johnsbury In regard to the dispersion OF
witnesses was not a valid one.
| Mr. PALMER of Waterbury was as reluctant
as anybody to interfere with a system which was
created in the interests Of liberty and should be
very cautious in disturbing 1t; but this bill did
not greatly enlarge the present power OF state
attorneys while 1t saved the state the expense OF
long sessions of grand juries attended by a multi
tude of WITNESSES lie did not want the grand
| jury abolished. 1t was great safeguard of the
liberty of the individual; and this bill did not
Mr. THOMPSON said that his experience as
states attorney Of Orleans county had shown him
that grand jury always indicted every man
whom the state attorney advised them to They
| Immediately followed his advice The grand
jury had never failed to find an indictment when
lie had advised While on the pages OF the
statute book the present bill would apparently
increase the powers Of the states attorney, prac-
tically, 1t would not at all, and it would save a
great deal OF needless expense, and secure the
speedy trial and punishment of crimes
Mr., FlflELD agreed with the gentleman from
Grand Isle that the theoretical danger OF the bill
was that it gave a states attorney an opportunity
to abuse his position. But for several years
this power had existed, to certain extent, and
had never been abused. So, practically his OBJ
the saving in expense would be about $4,000 a
year. The grand jury was not abolished by this
bill. 1t would come together annually, AS before
But, II the states attorney had done his duty
there would be nothing for it to do.
Mr.. BROWN asked for the yeas and nays.
They were called, and resulted; yeas, 1856; nays,
H. So the third reading was ordered for to-
| morrow morning.
Joint ResoiutiOas.-From the senate providing