Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-28
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
VARIOUS ToPrcs DISCUSSED.
Preliminary Examinations.

iNt IutW ~ INC NtsP"fS"'
avn compened to ask indulgence for
reply TO a long lstter by Attorney
for the Commonwealth, published in
your last Sundays issue. lie makes a
fierce reply to few lines which lately
wrote in connection with the report OF
a legislative committee. He is very
volaminouS. bot fails 10 see the point
under consideration.
In the outset | must state for the
benefit Of any who id not read my
tilSt short letter, that L does not con-
tain word or an intnstion rejecting
on the justices Of any county in the
State. "A. z. C.'sn misrepreSenta.
ton in this respect would indeed be
unique, but HI, reasoning faculties and
memory present some more extraordi.
nary anomalies. His arguments may
all be included under these three heads:
Q) Saving costs to the State. (2) Ac-
quitting parties charged with felOnies.
g. Ailording more time for the prepa-
ration Of defence in criminal cases.
Does section Is, chapter l6, Crimi-
nal Code, as construed by our courts,
save expensef In other words, does it
save costs TO send a party indicted for
a felony before justice, have all the
witnesses on both sides summoned,
&C, &C.? How so? Suppose the party
is discharged by the justice, where is
the saving then? The prosecuting at
torney gets his fee other officers get
their fees the Court remanding the
party always has jury summoned
TO try the party, because the Court
fairly presumes the party will be sent
on for trial at all events, it is the
Courts duty to be ready for trial in
the efent be is sent on. Where is the
saving here? On the contrary, sup.
pose the party sent on is remanded for
trial, is it not plain that all costs in
cured before the justice are costs
that repeal Of the statute would
save TO the court: A. T. {. says "One
BALI Of those indicted are finally ac-
quilted" His article, read as a whole,
states very clearly that one half the
persons sent before these justices are
acquitted in court--fnddy acquitted.
| suppose in this he is not far out Of
the way. Then, in one half Of tie
felony cases in our State very heavy
snd useless cost IS incurred in sending
these parties before the justice, and by
him sent back to cOurt. This cost is
extra cost, and does not tighten one
penny the court cost. Even if it was
true that the cost of the jury is saved
when the party is acquitted before the
Justice then the extra cost when the
prisoner is remanded would greatly
oyerbalance the account. This prOpo-
sition could be demonstrated so far as
our State is concerned by figures, but
ii is too obvious to require demonstra-
ton.
Al. c. complains that without this
preliminary examination the prisoner
would not have time to concoct his de-
fence. Here need not interpOSe my
humble opinion. A. F. c. does not
agree with ;he COM made by the
special committee Z. American Bar
Association publish. n the latter part
of 1888. nor does he tolerate the COM
ments on this report Of the press and
Of reformers in civil Jurisprudence in
every land in chriStendOm. He proba-
bly, considers as childish nonsense the
complaints of the people of Cincinnati |
last year, which eliminated in open
hostility in regard to the methods en-
ployed in the criminal courts of that
city. If there is ore object on which
human sympathy and indulgence is too
much lavished, it is time given to par
ties charged with crime. Hardness in
court matters is admittedly the most
powerful enemy TO court justice, even
in these days of coupon-eleyenth.amend-
ment decisions. will not dwell
others far ADLER and more experienced
than have discussed this question, and
the verdict has been rendered by an in
telligent bar, if not by an intelligent
public opinion.
IF. G. labors quite hard to prove
that the preliminary examination aids
the accused in his defence, and he Is
astonished that any one who ever de-
tends should object. lie assumes that
any law which enables a felon to get
oil is a good law. Acquittal is his
yard-stick by which he measures every
argument pro or CON. With such
standard one could easily prove that all
criminal law ought to be abolished. To
A.. T. c. that which enables him to get
a man Oft is goOd-all else is bad. This
explains his luminosity towards the
grand jury. If he were sheriff really
believe he would say God save the
prisoners -" instead of "God save the
Commonwealth. From such a stand
point | can see the beauty and force
of his argument. Here is the strength of
hi, argument; and having admitted his
premises, or rather his assumption. all
men must agree with A. +. {. Take
the good Of the community as your
standard, and this argument is a good
enc against the law. 1t aids too much.
II enables the defendant q do not say
his COUNSEL to bride, brOwbeat, and in
timidate the witnesses for the Common
wealth-an evil too frequent when
wealthy men are indicted for crime.
The defendant is not bound to present
even the names OF his witnesses he
can hear the testimony of the Common
wealth's witnesses, and then waive
further examination. Between the ex-
animation and the trial the defendant,
in the event Of failure to bride the
Commonwealth witness, can collect
his explanatory evidence, and shape
and fashion il for his trial. All that
a man hath will he give for his life"
These considerations outweigh whatever
of good that does sometimes accrue to
an innocent man.
A. +. c. attacks the grand jury.
lie tells us that the grand jury is
BIPARTISAN 4" body. The grand juror
takes solemn oath that he will not be
partisan. No language could be more
explicit in repelling bias than the grand
Jurors oath.
would respectfully suggest that