Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1880-01-21
The States Attorney and Crime.

age are the adherence or the laughing stock
of another. And it appears to make little
or no difference whether those opinions re-
lac to matters in the field of ethics, or to
matters in what at first blush might seem
the less settled field Of esthetics. The severe
convictions of our grandfathers, in which
there was in their day pretty general agree
ment, have given place with us to ques-
tioning but easy and complaisant spirit,
which at least makes the world less diff.
cult place to live in. We reject the belief
Of Sir Thomas Browne, of Cotton Mather,
and others equally learned or equally pious,
in the power of an old woman with "a
squeaking voice or scolding tongue" so to
in the gateway. We disbeieve in the expe-
diency of hanging man for stealing a
sheep or shilling. And we turn in disgust
and horror from the ferocious inhumanity of
the ancient penalty for imagining the kings
DEATH In these and in many other respects
great changes of opinion have taken place.
But this amelioration of the moral and Grim
inal codes has been accompanied by an in
crease, broadly speaking, in the disparity in
individual opinions. Starting from tyranny
and barbarity, men have travelled pretty con-
stantly in the direction of lenity and liberty,
but the paths taken have been somewhat
divergent. Thus, while all are on tn, hither
side of the initial point, the positions at
present held are widely variant. While one
man is merciful to the verge Of sentiment
atty, another is almost as fierce as his British
progenitor of the time of the Conquest. This
difference is plainly marked, both in the acts
that different people would punish as crimes
and in the punishments they would inlct.
While one man would think it a crime to
confine carload of cattle forty eight hours
without food or drink, or to beat refractory
horse with a dray-pin, another would think
it somewhat unfeeling act, but no crime.
While one would think it highly criminal
to sell alcoholic liquor to be used as bev.
erage, another would think it proper
or even laudable proceeding. So while
one believes in imprisonment, softened and
made comfortable by the more refining lux
uries of civilized life, another believes in
the whipping post, the chain gang and the
death penalty. These differences are plainly
marked on the statute books of different
states, or in the different books of the same
state, or even in the different statutes of the
same books. Every new legislature either
adds to or takes from the catalogue of
crimes, or prescribes different punishments
for acts that already stand in the long list
But whatever the differences in opinion as
to what should be punished as crimes, and
as to what the punishments should be, there
are no differences, except between the Of
tenders on one hand aud the public on the
other, as to the expediency of vigorously en-
forcing whatever laws may be in existence
at any given time. The general concur
renee in this opinion is expressed in the
maxim which is to the effect that it matters
not 80 much what the laws are as that they
be executed. The reasons for this are OBJ
vious. If the law is proper law it should
be enforced for that reason. If it is i'm
proper, its enforcement would be the surest
means to procure its amendment or repeal
Yet it is just here, where all are nationally
agreed upon the thing necessary to be done,
that the machinery of our criminal law,
considered as a means for the prevention
and punishment of crime, oftenest breaks
down. We have all seen the various mani
festations OF this weakness. Once in a
while community, or some considerable
part of it, will be stirred by the growth of
some enormous evil to spasm of indignant
virtue. The machinery of the law will be
put in motion the states attorney will be
consulted; the grand jury will assemble /;
cases of infraction of the law will be
brought before Them witnesses will be
heard; bills will be found, aud every pre-
hminary step usual in bringing offenders to
judgment will be taken with all due solem.
nifty. The virtuous public feels throb of
hope. But after time it transpires that
the states attorney, acting perhaps on an
understanding with some leading member
of the bar who has been employed by the
respondents, which does not transpire, signi-
fes purpose not to prosecute. Or perhaps
that peril is escaped, and case is really
brought out for trial 1t then turns out
that the states attorney has been busy with
his own private practice, and has not pre-
pared his proof nor studied his case. Coun-
sci are then brought in to assist him, but
they are more ignorant of the case, if pos
sible, than he is, and can serve the public
better only as they are better lawyers. The
trial proceeds, perhaps, through all its vari-
GUS stages, the judges and the jury preserv-
ing becoming gravity as best they can, till
the case is finally submitted. A verdict Of
acquittal is then rendered, or the jury disa
gree, for the reason that there was fatal
lack OF attainable evidence, or an unskillful
presentation of evidence in itself sufficient
or a palpable, inherent weakness in the case
that ought to have been to the states attor
ney warning against the indictment in the
outset. Or, If by some accident the verdict
should be guilty, the case goes to the su
preme court on exceptions that have founc
Judgment in some defect of the indictment
or in some stupid blunder in putting in Tn,
evidence. The verdict is then set aside, an,
new trial granted, in which the same per
Ills are again encountered. The course o
justice is not always so untoward, but sucl
are some of the ways in which it fails o
its object. There are other ways not les
familiar.
The cause of these things is not obscure
1t is easily found in the peculiarities of GU
states-attorney system, which has now es
listed for many years substantially III
changed, although its imbecility has lon
been plain enough to the view of any on
who would take the pains to look at i
One of the most obvious defects in the sy
TEN is the great number of the officers o
whom are devolved the duties of pros
cutting attorney, and the consequent small
ness Of the salaries paid, there being fou
teen Of these attorneys, receiving salari,
ranging from 800 to $3.50 per annum, an
averaging 1924 only. Who could expe
to persuade any attorney of experience
capacity, or with any business, to accept sue
an office with such salary? As has be,