Spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1845-1913, 1902-06-07
Mr.. CLEMENTS REPLY
RUTLAND, VT, Tunc ?, o.

y
Dear sir: In your letter pub
lished in the Vermont Standard you
state that asserted that the court
expenses in Io wears, from 1884 to
1000, have increased to the extent
of something like $I6S, 900, and then
say that this statement is not COR
rect.
did not say that the court en-
penses had increased SOS, 900. The
figures that read in my address at
Woodstock are as follows: F
State officers
report 80, 1894 pgs. sO-15O sss,4l7
State officers
report 49,. 1889 90 pgs. 1lO-lsO 1913. 4ss
State officers
report :. -. 1894 pgs. lOo-2sO l67, OTIS
State officers
report. $50. 10000 pgs. 1870 237. s7s
1884 rs above, S9,4l7
The increase in 10 years. $l4S, 46l
This is exclusive of judges and
states attorneys salaries.
Again you are wrong in your
statement about the states attorney
from Rutland county having the
approval of his account for services
withheld by the presiding judge for
not being more prompt and diligent
in his prosecution.
The facts in that matter were rs
follows:
The presiding judge in Rutland
county presented a complaint to the
supreme court for the disbarment Of
the Rutland county states attorney
upon the ground that the states at
torney had deceived the pre-
siding judge. He based that al!ega-
ton upon the fact that the states at
torney had written him certain let
ter in relation to his action in liq-
uor prosecutions. The letter, upon
which the judge relied in order to
find basis for his allegation, was
mailed in Rutland the same day that
the judges approval of the states
attorneys account was mailed at
Hyde Park. When, therefore, it
became apparent that the judge
could not substantiate his charge of
deception upon such letter, he
did not hesitate to change front and
swear to another statement Of facts
in order to accomplish his purpose.
The disbarment of the Rutland
county states attorney was a stencil
IN the nostrils Of the supreme court,
and of the bar Of this state,
and finally the supreme court with
out ever showing malfeasance or
any proper cause for dlsbarment, re-
stored the attorney to his position.
No greater outrage has ever been
perpetrated under the prohibitory
law than the disbarment Of the young
states attorney from Rutland
county.
| have carefully retrained from
making any reference in this cam
paign to the disbarment of the Rut-
land county states attorney, or in
fact to the supreme court of the
state. and responsibility tor bringing
this matter into the campaign rests
entirely with you.
Under paragraph six, you say In
regard to the indictment for man
slaughter in Windsor county:
"The indictment referred to is
the presentmcnt Of the eighteen men,
called to serve as grand jurors, UNI
der an oath to diligently inquire
and true presentment make"
That is true. Nevertheless, every
one knows who has any knowledge
of the operation of criminal law,
that the states attorney presents
such indictment to the grand juryi
that he is the arm Of the law, elect
ed for that purpose; and that as
matter of fact he does instigate and
supervise indictments, and thar
practically the responsibility for the
defeat of justice in Windsor county
is due to your states attorney. No
one better knows this to be true than
you do.
| have not heretofore noticed crit
icisns of my speeches in the state
upon this subject, and should not
do so now but tor the fact that your
official position may give eredence
to your statements which they would
not otherwise obtain.
! have nothing to say in regard to
the conclusions which you arrive
at in your communication. But it
it is true that your criticism is not
unfriendly, you should at least cor
rect your statements of fact upon
which they are based.
Yours very truly,
PEnc1NA1 w CLAIMANT.