The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1891-12-23
The Liquor Prosecutions.


The argus and Patriot of last week
contained an article filled with railing
accusation and criticism of grand Jury,
sheriff and states attorney for the parts
they have taken in the recent liquor
prosecutions. The article is signed
81. R."-which being interpreted is
believed to be G. ]. Gleason, Esq. but
is editorial in form and tone. The
writer says:
But it has seemed apparent to many from
the beginning of the term that the states
attorneys and sheriff's departments meant
to work this court for all there was in it.
The grand jury was kept very much longer
than usual, and we believe four times as
long as was necessary, and all this time
deputy sheriffs were kept skurrying about
summoning witnesses almost without num-
Der, four out of five of whom were unneces-
sary, causing useless expense. The states
attorney or his advisers apparently seemed
to have very little idea of what was neces-
sary to make case against any one. Nu-
merous indictments were procured on testi-
uOny WHcI6 IL NOulu Sttlu tldJ any Orul-
nary lawyer ought to have known convic-
ton could not be had and the result of such
indictments has been to make large ex-
penses for the state to pay, and also to the
unfortunate parties who were unjustly in
dicted and obliged to defend themselves.
Innocent parties were arrested and tried
where the state was utterly wanting in evil
dence necessary to convict. And in some
cases these parti were put to large ex-
pense, for which they have no redress.
This showed either want of legal ability or
judgment in the states attorney,
The writer complains that counsel
was employed or assigned to assist the
states attorney, thereby making addi-
tional labor and expense to somebody
probably to the state"; that witnesses
in large numbers were summoned by
order of the states attorney, kept in
attendance for weeks and not used at
al" "; that Zone was kept twenty six
days and not used at all y; that this is
only one of great number of aggra-
waiting instances of want of good iudg-
ment or shameful incapacity"; that eli
these reports are true, the people have
just cause to be indignant at such wan,
ton trtling with their rights" The
man who makes this attack very nat.
urally skulks behind an anonymous.
Now as to the real facts in the case
1t is true that witnesses to prove charge;
and sustain indictments were sum
moned, kept in hand and produced wher
they were wanted. Very likely it,woulC
. have been more satisfactory to the Ar
gus and its clients when their cases were
called, if the states witnesses had beer
wanting. But Judge Stanton wa
"playing for keeps" and was playin!
in dead earnest. Moreover, he was en-
? joined by the court to keep his witnesse
3 where they could be had when needed
SO the bench also shares the response
a bility for keeping witnesses in attend
! ance. In the particular case referre
. to, that witness was wanted, and tn
: states attorney was ready to try tn
# case, but court adjourned finally befor
e it was reached. The states attorne
!, was ready at all times to try his cases
: There was no default on his part, bu
j. delay was occasioned because couns,
n for one of the Argus clients wa
J. drunk--a circumstance j. II. does NJ
" mention in his arraignment of Judg