Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1910-02-02
Judge Alfred Thinks Different.

The following report appeared in
the Brattleboro Reformer on January
IA.
While the majority Of the best
judges of probate and many of the
best legal authorities in Vermont are
satisfied with the methods of proceed
ure being adopted in recommitting
patients to the state hospital for the
insane atWaterbury and to the Brattle-
boro Retreat there is one dissenter.
He is Judge Frank E. Alfred of New
port. Contrary to the opinion ex-
pressed by the encouragement
that it is optional with judge of
probate whether or not patients for
recommitment shall be summoned
to appear in court Judge Alfred has is
sued an ultimatum to superintendent
of insane institutions in Vermont that
all patients to be recommitted in his
court must appear before him. He
cites decision in the Allen case last
fall and believes that he is justified
by that decision in demanding that
patients be summoned into his court
in every case. The stand taken by
Judge Alfred is not, however, shared
by many of the overseers of the poor
and selectmen who are interested
parC10S IN the matter.
During the past week it became
known that this matter of procedure
was being discussed by members OF
the board of supervisors and Tuesday
evening DIR. F. E. Steele had a con
: versation over the telephone Will
, a representative of the Reformer. HI
! said that he did not understand thai
, the matter of recommitting patients t.
vi 11rn
! which the board of supervisors hat
: any jurisdiction. The doctor sal
: that as he understood the matter
= was entirely in the hands of tn
), superintendent of such institution
! and the high state officials. He sal
: that the board of supervisors of tn
insane was not at all concerned as t
the methods of procedure.
An interview the same evening wit
DIR. Don d. Grout, superintendent G
e the state hospital for the insane q
d Waterbury, brought forth decided
= contrary opinion. When he was ask e
e if any responsibility rested upon tn
1t superintendent as to the recommi
o ting of state patients, as made nece
y sary under the ruling Of the suprem
IS court, he said most emphaticall,
:, 'No, not particle of responsibilit
IL roSCS OH lie superintendent OF
g insane institution except to carr
y out the orders of the probate in eae
}. case" lie said there was different
to of opinion among probate judges as
ID the legality of committing a person
re an insane institution without a ju,
s. trial, and that he had been advised /
two judges of probate courts that jul
IL trials would have to be held in evel
IN case coming under their jurisdiction
e, While he would not permit himse
I'd to criticise the several metho,
rt adopted by probate judges in r
to committing patients to the hospital
il Waterbury, DR.. Grout said he was We
o. much in doubt whether persons Ii
ne erty could be restrained by incarcer
id ton in an insane asylum without
n Jury trial. He said that in Was
a. ington, Caledonia and Orange coun
Dis cases, numbering in all about so,
cb had been summoned to appear befo
r. the probate court in each case al
testify as to the mental condition
t, patients.
r The law prohibits superintende
- from issuing a certificate of comm
IT, ment to his institution or to any