Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1893-02-02
The Prosecuting Attorney Knocked
Out.


time to look up the authorities, reply
to the Prosecuting Attorneys defense
for his failure to institute proceedings
against certain persons for notorious
and fragrant violation of law. We come
up smiling this week, however, with
no less parsonage than Judge Jno. L.
Thomas of the Supreme Court of Mis-
souri, as our hacker. In fact, the whole
court, in ba,sc, unanimously says the
REGISTERS position is correct, and out
laws the Prosecuting Attorneys way
back and effete rendering of a statute
so plain that even layman ought not
err therein. Here are some pertinent
excerpts from the decision in the
case of State VS.. Ransberger, as given
in log Mo-, page 1876. We wish we
had space for the full opinion, but these
we think will satisfy even Mr.. Jordan:
Therefore, when the prosecuting
attorney files an information it is al
ways official; it is his accusation; and
for it he is responsible. But, if pri-
vate person can, by making the requir-
ed affidavit, compel a prosecuting at
torney to file an information, it would
be illogical and unjust as we'll, to hold
that it is the information of the prose-
cutting attorney for which he is respon-
sible. And, besides that, private
person could in that event, in fact,
though not in form, present an inform
alton, and thus accomplish by indirec-
tion that which he could not accomplish
directly. 1t is true the statute provides
that, when the prosecuting attorney is
informed of the commission of an of
Tense by the affidavit of another, it
shall be his duty to file an information.
But this language ought not to be SO
construed as to give the prosecuting
attorney no discretion in the premises;
such construction would nullify the
constitutional provision requiring Grim
inal charges to be preferred by grand
juries or sworn officers who stand in
different between accused parties and
the state and would subject the citizen
to harassment by criminal prosecu-
ton having no higher basis than the
malice of his enemy. If the affidavit
of the other person fails to firmly con-
vince the prosecuting attorney, fails to
give him knowledge that an offense has
been committed, he can legally and
refuse to proceed; indeed, his
highest duty would require that he re-
fuse to proceed. The prosecuting at
torney ought to have enough informa-
ton in regard to the commission OF the
offense before he Institutes the proecu-
ton to cause him to believe that an of
tense has been committed, and that a
certain person committed it. The
the statute requires of him
may be acquired in various ways; he
may have personal knowledge of some
of the facts and information from others
as to other facts or information from
others as to all the facts. All that is
required is that he shall, in his official
be reasonably satisfied that
the due administration of the law re-
auires him to proceed by Information.
And, if an affidavit does not give him
knowledge to this extent, he is not
of the commission of an of
tense within the meaning of the statute.
I'VE will now consider how the con-
text corroborates the position we have
assumed. The language is: When
ever the prosecuting attorney has
of the commission of an of
tense, ETC. Now, if knowledge is used
here in the restricted sense, no one
could swear that he knoacs that an Of
Tense has been committed. He may see
certain conduct, and be able to swear
that he knows what the conduct is. and
still be unwilling and unable to swear
that an ofense has been committed.
It takes several elements to constitute
a crime and ordinarily it takes judi
cial investigation to determine whether
all of those elements are present or
not. In the nature of things, no one
can kn0U, in the strict sense, that
crime has been committed. in a large
majority of cases, and it may be safely
affirmed in all. Indeed, judicial adj
proceeds upon informa-
lion almost wholly. In early times
the witnesses of transaction were the
Jurors who passed on it; but now we
deem it unsafe for the court to permit
anyone who knows q fact in connection
with the transaction that is likely to
bias him to enter the jury box. He
hen must decide upon information,
and his verdicts are based solely on
belief. The courts instructs the jury,
if you believe from the evidence you
will find, etc. The finding IS based on
belief The jury is not required to re-
turn Eve know Hence, If q prosecut-
ing attorney is required to kssosc that
IN offense has been committed before
fling an information, more would be
OF HIM in formulating and
preferring q charge to put 9 person on
lis defense than is required Of the
), r,ar. On the final trial This Ena1ld not