The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-08

the defendant into trial under such cir cumstances unless satisfied that 1t Is a mere pretext to get continuance.
 or course the State is ready. or should pc. unless some material witness IS ao, sent Having had them before the grand Jury and examined under oath, the soil citor as general rule can safely an nounce ready for trial, but not so with the defendant. So in all probability the case will have to be continued, and each continuance lessens the chances of con Viction by reason of witnesses dying, re- moving from the State and having h. huences brought to bear upon them. causing them to modify their evidence of conveniently forget.
 The only way to remedy this that can see, Is to have more frequent terms or court-say four terms q year, instead Of two. But at this time l doubt II this is practicable. as it would be very heavy tax upon some of the counties.
 Another suggestion is, that the number of challenges allowed defendants in capi- tai cases be reduced. Why should the defendant in adition to all challenges for cause, have twenty-one, and the State only fourteen? There can Toe no good reason for it. The defendant has the advantage of the reasonable doubt and the burden Is upon the State to estab- fish his guilt beyond such doubt. Why then give him this additional advantage? In my judgment the number of challenges for the State and defendant, should not exceed twelve each.
 Again in capital cases excuse no one from jury duty except those over a cer- tain age, practising physicians. ministers Of the gospel In charge of a church, drug gists and railroad employees.
 A large number of the best citizens in each county, those who would make the best jurors, escape jury duty, by being justices of the peace, township trustees, etc.
 A vast deal of the crime committed In the mineral region of the State is due to the Tact that convicts are turned loose there after the expiration of their sen tence. whereas they should be returned to their respective counties. As far back as 1880 urged upon our County Commits sioners to have incorporated into the con tract, and as part of It that the con victs should be returned to the jail at Livingston, and there discharged. l be- lieve this was done for awhile. did this for two reason: In the first place some of our convicts were held over time. and by returning them we would know that they had been discharged; and in the second place the returned convict is known and 1T he is a dangerous character he will be closely watched. and in addl- ton to this. he does not have his bad associates to consort with and plan rob berries, murders, etc It is the concentra- tion of this bad element at Birmingham and one or two other places in tho State, that causes so much crime at those places. It is not fair to those places that they should have all of this bad element dumped upon them. Some of these ex-convicts would doubtless return to that section. but many of them would not.
 Another suggestion though not ger mane to the subject under discussion, is that would like to see d law empowering the courts to suspend sentence in mis- demeanor cases. In many cases 1 think the effect would be good and exercise wholesome restraint over defendants.
 $. II. Sprott.