Waterbury evening Democrat., 1889-08-24
PERSECUTION BY LAW.

A writer in the New Haven Morning News makes a sharp attack on the sys- tenn of compensation to liquor prosecut- ing agents under which is cloaked so much persecution and injustice to men engaged in the business of selling liquor. Instancing the batch of screen law cases brought by MT Colley in this city, the News writer scouts the idea that these cases were brought ill good faith, as the statute providing for the agents pay provides, and doubts very much if the city court judge of Waterbury could conscientionsly take that view of it and allow such wholesale robbery of the public funds'
 We have no knowledge of what Judge Cowell thought of MT Colley's action in bringing so many cases before the actual construction of the screen law had been made by competent legal tribunal, but we suspect, from his remarks when ren- dering his decision ill the cases and his action in dismissing all but five of them, that he was not over much impressed with MT Colley's sincerity. Nobody could be who had any knowledge of this fellows career as a prosecuting agent. We have an idea that if d fixed salary were attached to the prosecuting agents office, or his pay were made condi tional on conviction or reasonably probable assurance of guilt, there would be fewer cases brought not alone by MT Colley, but by other prosecuting agents as well. The fees as allowed by section 3,717 of the general statutes of Connec- ticut are liberal enough to attract the greed of any lawyer, and it is more than likely that others would be equally avari- cious as Colley has shown himself to be did they have the same opportunity. The fault appears to be primarily and chiefly with the law itself, though man with a right conscience would not make his office an engine of persecution, as many of the prosecuting agents have done. It is quite certain that many cases have been brought against liquor dealers where there was neither a reason able probability of guilt or fair pre- sumption of probable conviction. Is it reasonable to suppose that such cases have been brought in good faith? Is it not probable rather that they were brought that the prosecuting agent might collect his S1O fee? And is this not persecution pure and simple entail ng as 1t does expense of legal defense on the unfortunate liquor dealer? Unless it is asserted that the liquor dealer has no rights before the law the action of our prosecuting agents in many cases cannot be defended. But while the liquor business is a legitimate industry men engaged ill it have the right to pro- lection against persecution under the forms of law.
 There is one or two ways of remedy ing the evil of the present system un- der which prosecuting agents commit such great and monstrous wrongs. Make the fee contingent on conviction or fix a reasonable salary limit to the office. Either of these methods would remove from the path of the conscienceless prosecuting agent the temptation to prosecute liquor dealers on any and every proyocation, ,and would leave these the self-respect of knowing that they are neither outlaws nor Ishmaels in the eyes of the law and society. Unless something is done in the premises Con- necticut must be willing to shoulder the disgrace of carrying on her statute books laws that are simply and solely engines of persecution in the hands of avaricious and constituencies agents.
 And persecution by law should not be popular in the land whose early settlers rebelled against similar persecution in '76.