Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1893-02-01
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE,

Hartford Courant there appeared a
letter from Waterbury, criticising the
bill now pending before the general
granting criminal Jurisdiction
to the district court of Waterbury,
which was so full of glazing errors and
mistatements of fact that it de-
mands public explanation of the pur-
poses and objects of this bill which after |
a full hearing before the judiciary com |
mittee, of which daily notice three days |
was given in the legislature bulletin, |
was reported favorably to the house.
Under our present laws all appeals
and binding over cases from the police
court go to the criminal term of the su-
perior court for Waterbury, and for
many years the judges of the superior
court have given to this waterbury
criminal term only time sufficient to
hear the cases of Importance such as
murder, manslaughter, burglary, theft
and similar cases and all appeals of
petty cases necessarily have been settled
by the states attorney. This state of
affairs has long been generally under
stood and appeal after appeal has been
taken from the police court, the law
yers and criminals knowing well that
their cases cannot be tried in the supe-
rior court. The judges of the superior
court will not and ought not to give
their time to hearing cases, where
the accused has been fined 81 to 81 for
petty misdemeanors. The result is well
shown by a comparison of the number
of cases which have been sposed of in
the superior courts for the various coun-
ties.
During the six years from 1884 1890
as shown by the comptrollers annual re-
ports there were more cases disposed of
in the Waterbury terms of the
superior court than in the supe-
rior courts for six of the counties
of this state, being exceeded only by the
counties of New Haven and Fairfield.
During this time there we're in the
superior court for Hartford county, in
Guiding all cases coming from the cities
of Hartford and New Britain, the town
of Bristol and all other towns of that
county, less cases than in the Waterbury
term of the superior court, practically
all of which coming from the Water
bury police court alone, the numbers
being respectively 1,021 and ,02S. These
figures do not necessarily show any larg-
er proportion of wickedness for this city,
but they do show conclusively that it is
/ we'll known that the judges of the
superior court will only give their time
| to hearing the cases of Importance, thus
| forcing the states attorney to settle the
vast majority of the appealed cases for
II
pay. And hence case efter case is ap-
pealed where there is no question of the
prisoners guilt. A comparison of the
,O21 Hartford county cases and the
| ,O2S Waterbury cases actually coming
before the court by pleas of guilty and
| trials will plainly point the benefit of
| having court which can Immediately
| attend to all cases brought to it, as in
1 Hartford 694 out of 1921 cases were
brought before the court, while out of
| ,O2S Waterbury cases only 1879 were be-
fore the court.
The states attorney at Waterbury.
MIR Terry, has ably and theoretically
conducted these Waterbury criminal
terms, but it would be beyond the power
of any man to bring any but the i'm
portant cases before the court. The re-
ports of the treasurer's of the state for
the same period are conclusive additional
evidence of the advantage, as stated
above, of having court before which an
| immediate trial can be forced, as states
| attorney for Hartford county paid over
to the treasurer of the state from fines
forfeitures, etc, in his 1921 cases $22,.
35S 40, while the LOGS Waterbury cases
produced but S6,9 4S 81, difference OF
SO, 400 "a; which would more than pay
all the expenses incurred by reason OF
the additional criminal jurisdiction Of
the district court, to say nothing of the
proper administration of justice, where
by a prisoner found guilty and sen
fenced should be forced to conform tt
the terms of his sentence. This bill
now pending simply cOnfers upon the
district court the power to hear all cases
Iappealed from the police court of Wa
terbury and from justices of the peace
in the towns of New Haven county il
the district of Waterbury,, excepting
Cheshire, leaving all binding over case
for the superior court as heretofore.
AS to the expense of this additions
criminal jurisdiction the letter to thu
ICOurant referred to above, makes sucl
gross MISREPRESENTATION that they nee(
not be referred to in detail, except to sa,
that this.letter states that there are to b.
three new salaries amounting to 81 ,OO
in addition to per diem of SO for thu
Judge holding the criminal term, where
as the only new expense incurred by TIN
bill is a salary of 81 500 to the prosecu
ting attorney, the same as paid to tn
prosecuting attorney of the police court
The bill provides that the salaries of tn
judge and deputy judge of the distric
court shall remain as now fixed by Law
and the effect of the bill will be sucl
that the duty of holding these crimina
terms will devolve mainly upon tn
Judge of the district court for which h.
will receive no additional compensation
A further and decided advantage TO
this city under this bill would be tn
great saving of time and expense bot
to individuals and the state by reason O
having a number of cases tried in Wa
terbury, instead of being obliged to g
to New Haven and await the coming o
case in it's turn. The saving to tn
state IN the way of witnesses and off
GERS fees would be large, while to indi
, viduals, witnesses, counsel, etc, the saw
ing of time and expense and delay can
not be estimated. AS to the city itself
; the advantage of not being obliged t.
have a large proportion Of its polio
force absent in New Haven should no
be under estimated, as at times nearl,
one-half of the entire force have bee
8 called to New Haven as witnesses i
cases which would now be tried in Wa
, terbury.
In support of this bill there wer
present before the Judiciary committe
= last Thursday the assistant states attol
new the MAYOR of this city, the senate