Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-10-14

The following section was added,
and the principal contention in this
case arises hereunder:
Sec. 4. Any indictment for muir
der returned by the grand Jury in said
superior court at the April term
thereof in the year nineteen hundred
and thirteen, shall be in order for tri-
al at the next September term of said
court, which shall have Jurisdiction OF
all matters pertaining thereto"
1t is urged in the motion that this
provision in its attempt to reach the
Gaze at bar, is retroactive legislation
and ex post facto In its nature" Held:
1. If the point raised related TO the
crime charged, or to the constitutional
rights of the respondent Hereunder
our conclusion would not be reached
SO easily, but the provision in question,
directed as it plainly is to procedure
and relating entirely to the remedy,
and having for its obvios purpose the
conduct and disposition of pending
case, is constitutional, and wholly
within the legislative power and con-
troll, and is not as 10 this case an
eX post facto law. or retroa ctive In
its nature or tendency
?. 1t does not appear that any reason
existed why change of venue should be
had, that a fair trial could not be had.
or was not in fact had
8. The right to a change OF venue is not
common law right It is created and
regulated by statute, and is also mat
ter Of procedure authorized by the Legis-
lature under its sole and plenary power
to determine what course shall be pur-
sued in the administration of justice, as
well as In all other matters concerning
the public good.
4. The right to have jury selected
from another county or district is not one
of the rights within the words and in
tent OF the constitution prohibiting the
passage of ex post facto laws. under
Art l, secs, and 10.
5. 1t is well settled that mere change
In the constitution of the trial court
which leaves unchanged all the substan-
tial projections which the law in force at
the time of the commission of the alleged
offence threw about the accused, is not
ex post facto.
6. SO far as mere modes OF procedure
a SOii1ctiicN a " has no more right
in criminal than in civil action to in
sist that his case shall be disposed of I'M
der the law In force when the act to be
Investigated is charged to have taken
place. Remedies must always be under
the control of the Legislature, and it
would create endless confusion in legal
proceedings IL every case was to be con-
Quoted only in accordance with the rules
of practice, and heard only by the courts
in existence when Its facts arose. The
Legislature may abolish courts and Gre
ate new ones. and it may prescribe alto
gether different modes OF procedure in
its discretion though II cannot lawfully
in so doing, dispense with any OF those
substantial projections with which the ex-
listing law surrounds the person accused
of crime
l. The fact that the crime was commit
ted before the passage Of the act in ques-
ton, and that 30 days must elapse before
such act has the force OF law, does not
avail the respondent He had violated the
law. There Is no pretence that the law
so violated had been changed The on'y
change effected was in the manner in
which he should be tried for that Of
fence against the law. That change was
made by the law making power whose
will is paramount, and whose right to
shape the policy of the State is rot to
be questioned by the court, nor is the ad-
ministraton thereof to be dictated by the
offender. He has no vested right in the
matter of procedure. The rules and or
ders provided for the conduct of courts,
officials and community generally, are to
be observed by all alike as the law, UNI
less they interfere with some substantial
right guaranteed by the fundamental law
a careful examination of the questions
involved convinces the court that the
respondent was not deprived of the full
protection to which he was entitled under
existing law.
Exceptions overruled.
Received October 18th, 1914.