Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-18
An Open Letter.

To the Members Of the General Assembly
of Virginia:
Please allow a suggestion in connection
with retrenchment. which | am satisfied
will save a large amount TO the public
treasury annually.
There Is no necessity for the summoning
of more than twelve iurors-"remote.'
&c.--in felony cases. About nine times in
ten. in my experience, twelve suffice. Let
the Judge of the court summon as ne
may think best men free from objection
and at the suggestion of counsel, larger
number may be had.
never summon jurors, unless the case
is very important, until we find out that
IT will probably be tried. And we save
costs In this way under the law allowing
the procuring Of jury at any time.
I have noticed particularly to see how
many. and in i'm the past two years only
two iuries in these courts had made up
or expressed an opinion as to the guilt
or innocence of the accused. Then cul
bono do we summon sixteen, with added
mileage and service?
Limit the time in which prisoners can
be confined in jail for minor offences. 1t
looks as if the matter af feeding prisoners
in Jail is very much ored by some or
the justices. Ana the"nHlt ousHt W NC
lower.
am emboldened to make these suggest
ions by the fact that others made by Inc
some wears ago in connection with the
petit and grand jury systems were adopt
ed by the Senate Committee for courts or
Justice and enacted into law.
In these things. little by little. the crime
costs can be reduced TO a minimum.
1t cannot be done by attacks on and
changes in the judiciary system. You
have as good a judiciary system as you
will ever get Senator Daniel. in an ad-
dress delivered i'm Manchester last fal
said that we had in force the cheapest
and best judiciary system that could be
devised. and q quote from memory that
many of the county judges would grace
the Supreme Court
The Senate plan to abolish. by consttu-
tional amendment the circuit and county
courts and substitute therefor twenty-five
or thirty district courts of chancery. COM
mon law, and criminal jurisdiction. with
appeal directly to the Supreme Court,
would certainly necessitate the making
of another court of appeals.
1t would cost the State to carry the sal
aries of this new array of judges about
$4,000 annually, and the work would not
be as well done. TO say nothing OF the
added costs of necessary delay in the trial
Of felony cases.
Under the present system we have di-
vided labors. The County Judge is. so TO
speak, on the spot. 10 hear application
for bail when 2 prisoner ought not to
be in Jail at public expense.
II a case IS not ready for trial he will
continue it to another day I'm the term,
while the District Judge would have TO be
moving on.
Besides. the County Judge has a great
many things to do which no judge at
distance could do so well. Look at the
500 convicts in the pententiary, and see
how well and how promptly the work Of
these judges has been accomplished.
Why, appeals from their rulings are
hardly ever taken.
Then let the courts alone. Give the
judges discretion in the mode Of procuring
jurors, and stop the long-term coniine-
ments in jail--for misdemeanors
We have an expensive jury system.
ISAAC II. CHRISTIAN.
Charles City County. February II. 1898.