The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1882-03-16


MR.. EDIroR:-Your communication of to-.
day calling my attention to a letter from Hon.
Neal Dow, touching the establishment, design
and operation of the Special Docket, published
in this mornings PRESS, has just been re-
ceiyed take pleasure in complying with
your request to give you the facts within my
knowledge in reference to that subject.
Ihad the honor to occupy the bench OF the
Superior Court for the County of Cumberland
from its organization in 1868, until November,
1871. During the year 1868 the jurisdiction OF
that tribunal was exclusively civil, but at the
January term, 1869, the entire criminal docket
of the Supreme Judicial Court in Cumberland
county was transferred to the Superior Court,
and the criminal jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court abolished.
Upon overhauling the criminal records of the
Supreme Court, with the assistance Of the
County Attorney (Hon Nathan Webb found
that during the ten years preceding, many
cases had been, from term to term, by special
order of court, dropped from the regular
criminal docket without any record of fina
disposal.
Twas not satisfied with this condition of things
auu buOuSub ~ NY uupJ w eono AnSe~o~ASo ~
remedy it, Accordingly, at the next criminal
term, in May, 1869, added to the "A rules
which / had already promulgated under the
authority conferred on me by section 10 of
chapter Isl, of the Public Laws of 1868, Rule
XIV, which directs the clerk to prepare a
special docket and index of such omitted cases
from 1859, and toadd thereto all cases so omit
to din future, erasing case only when finally
disposed Of The object of the special docket
thus created, was to preserve in public rec
ord, indexed and corrected each term, every
criminal proceeding pending in the county, in
order that justicesmight not be defeated by
lapse of time and change of judges and prose-
cutting officers. Its effect was, to bring to final
account a large number of culprits who had
supposed that their transgressions had been
forgotten. Most of them were brought into
court and took their sentences, or, pleading
guilty, their cases were continued for sentence
upon the special docket, with distinct notice
that a repetition of the offence or the commits
sion of any offence, or even motion of the
County Attorney or Attorney General would
be followed by the iniiction of the deferred
punishment.
linus bu0 0uuS VI JucbiCO WOAO suon0AfON
either by actual sentence or by its suspension
like the sword of Damocles, directly over the
offenders head, and that too without the ex-
pense, delay and uncertainty of a trial. In this
way the special docket became terror to evil
doors and most efficient agent for the sup
preston of crime of all kinds.
1t is manifest that Gen. Dow, through
want of familiarity with the history and opera
ton of the special docket, has fallen into sew
eral serious errors of fact highly preiudicial
and unjust to Mr.. Libby, in his official char
acter as County Attorney of Cumberland from
1874 to 1877.
T o give currency to an impression that
County Attorney Libby was guilty OF gross, de-
liberate, official misconduct and betrayal of
public trust in devising the special docket
without warrant of law for the purpose OF
evading the enforcement Of a law enacted dur
ing his incumbency, whereby he contrived
completely to nulify the statute which it was
made his duty to enforce; to give currency [
say to such an impression until he hears it ut
tered by Doctor of Divinity upon the plat
form at public meeting, when, the truth is
that the special docket was devised by the
Judge four or five years before Mr.. Libby went
into office, and that, too, by express warrant OF
law and for the purpose of more vigorous and
thorough enforcement of all the laws, is so
glaring wrong that Gen. Dow will, doubt
not, hasten to correct it, and all the more, I am
sure, because he is political opponent of Mr..
Libby.
have naturally felt some interest in the adj
minlstration of justice, both civil and cri min
al, in the Superior Court, and have had some
opportunity to observe it for the past ten years,
and confess that the charge made by DR.. Nc
Keown in my hearing at City Hall.was the first
accusation that had ever known to be brought
against any officer Of that tribunal since my re-
tirement from its bench. / am glad to learn
from the letter of Gen. Dow that it is without
foundation.
1 may perhaps be pardoned for adding that
the names of the eminent officers who have
conducted its prosecutions, JudgelWebb, Gen.
Mattocks, and Messrs. Libby. Butler, Haskell
and Coombs, as we'll as of its justices, Lane,
Symonds and Bonney, are, it would seem sufi-
Gent evidence that ability, integrity, learning
energy and independence, rather than specula-
tive opinions, are the true criteria of the use
fulness of public officer.
Pardon the length of my reply.
Your obedient servant,
G. w. GODDARD.