St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1914-06-10
Mr.. Browns Preliminary.

y
True to his promise Attorney Gen
eral Brown is coming along with a
complete statement of the detective
expenses of the state under his di-
rection. He says that it will be so
long that it will have to be run in
sections and last week he gave out
his preliminary statement. This is
so long we cannat give it in full but
will try here to give the readers a
clear view Of what he has said.
Prior to 1908 the. only provision
in the state law for the employment
of a detective was in the search for
a person who had committed a felony
and then the expense must not ex-
coed S25. The act of 1908 gave the
governor the right to authorize the
employment of a detective but before
giving the authority he must fix the
maximum amount that could be ex-
pended in any case. He then shows
that Attorney General Fits had cal
led for power to employ detectives
AS a result of his request the legis-
Iature in 1908 passed a law giving
the attorney general power to en-
ploy detectives and authorizing the
state auditor to draw orders in pay
ment for such service. Attorney
General Sargent found this worked
we'll but asked the legislature to
give the attorney general power to
employ persons for the securing of
evidence whenever he thought it nee
essary and the legislature of 1910
gave him that power. Under these
enlarged acts the employment of de-
tectives and other persons for the Sc
curing of evidence has been conduct |
ed at a rapidly increasing expense.
Most of the rest of Mr.. Browns !
statement is given up to the criti-
cism of those who have criticised the
expenses of his department and the
calling of names of those who have
so criticised him. Here he reveals
a weakness in his defense because
it is always~a sign of weakness for
one to begin calling the man who has
hit him names. He does state in an in
direct. way however that in Washing
ton county where 81. 600 was eXpend-
ed in an effort to bring a murderer
to Justice there had been approx
$4,000 turned into the state
treasury in fines and costs imposed in
prosecutions. He maintains
also that the detection and punish
ment of crime should not depend
upon it's cost. Nor is it de-
sirable to spend a specified sum in
the detection of crime and then stop
when the expenditure of more money :
would result in the apprehension Of
he criminal
Most of this reasoning seems sound
but we fear that Mr.. Brown may
ind it difficult to show that the re-
turns to tht state treasury in the
form of fines and costs in criminal
have increased as much
rs the detective expenses. Let us
compare the revenues from all
sources in the department of justice
Tor three years previous to the pass
age of the acts giving greater power
IN the employment Of detectives with
three years after it was in effect.
The revenue from the department
Of justice for 1906 was $91, S96.51,
Tor 1907 $75,9OO,39, for 1908 $S4,-
D1S.25. The law was in full effect
n 1910 and the revenue for 1911
vas $77,415.S5, for 1912 $7S,OSO.O2,
or 1913 $9O,153.S1. The total
'evenues for the three years before
he law was changed was $234,551.-
Is, for the three years after the last
.hange was made in the law S245,
i49.6S an increase OF $11, O9S.2O.
Detective service for the year 1907
ost the state $1,945.36, for 1908
;I,2SS.95 and for 1909 $6,3S2.72, a
otal of S9,612.O3; for 1911 $1O,-
,95.22, for 1912 21,373.2s and for
.913 s24,7O6.19. a total of $50. 647.-
10. The increase in detective ex-
lenses for the same periods as we
lave compared the revenues from
he department of justice is SAT-
1886 while the increase in reve-
tues was only S11.O9S.2O. We fear
he attorney general will find it hard
n face of these figures to show the
tate has received good financial re-
urns on the money expended for
detective service. OF course that is