The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1915-01-19
GOV. FLETcHEs's MESSAGE
Concluded from the Saturday Even
inc Banner.

1 ney-general. This Ofilce was created
| in 1904. 1t is not a constitutional Of
fee. merely statutory. and therefore
may be abolished at any time when
desired by the Legislature: The ad-
vocates of the creation OF this Office
mely that it would save the State
money, that it would expedite justice
| and advance the interests of the State
generally. | voted for the creation
| of this Office | am now satisfied
that State of this size does not re-
quire such an office | call your at
| tention further to the fact that the
expense of this office for the last bi-
ennial period has been in excess of
| $4,000 The question involved here
| is not whether or no this office has
been used for the purpose, so far as
possible, of limiting and obstructing
an executive in the exercise of his
constitutional duties when such
duties might conflict with the inter
ests of certain people; not whether
or not the office has been used as
roosting place for professional lobby
lists who do not suffer from cutane-
GUS hyperesthesia; not whether or no
it has been used for the purpose of
creating a political machine in the
various counties in the State; not
whether or no the present incumbent
will better conserve the interests of
the State than those of the past; my
preesnt opinion is he would-but the
real question involved is. Has not
divided authority led TO unnecessary
expense and a lessening OF RESPONSE
bility and initiative in the Offices of
States attorney? And, finally, is
there any real necessity for the Of
fee? ! recommend to YOU its abolish
ment with the consequent saving OF
substantially the sum named. Prior
to the establishment of this office, and
it is only six or eight years ago, the
States attorney of the various coun-
ties. the responsibility of litigation
for the State was his. He could not
share it with anyone, he prepared his
own cases. and success or failure was
his. Ii he needed additional counsel
he either went to the Judge of the
county court or came TO the Governor,
who then had power to employ coun-
sci if satisfied that il was needed,
and has today as the law has never
been repealed so far as the execu-
tive's power was concerned. But the
moment this office was created there
came a divided authority betw cen
the States attorney and the attorney
general. and failure or success could
be divided as TO responsibility, and
my personal opinion is that it led to
divided authority, and to the employ
ing of detectives to prepare the cases
rather than the cases being prepared.
so far as vidence was concerned, by
the properly authorized officers Of the
State.
Fourteenth To the cost of ad
ministration OF Justice. The expense
of the biennial period of 1901 and 1902
was S461.57T33; of 1913 and 1914
s799 ,092.S3. or an increase of materi
ally over 100000 or over 73 per cent
In eleven years. In 1906 the State
changed its system of courts and
created a superior bench of judges
The advocates of this change held
that it would expedite business, simp
lify justice. save the State large sums
of money and do away with the then
practice OF referring questions TO
masters. In my judgment the new
system has entirely failed to produce
the results claimed If ii be true that
we pay annually for administering
justice 100000 and for education
100000, then our system of admins
tering justice among ourselves costs
us almost as much as our education.
1t follows there is something wrong.
! believe the difficulty to be with the
system. recommend. therefore, that
the State at once return TO the sys-
TEN existing prior to the change, add
ing two or more judges to the su-
preme court and doing away entirely
with the superior court Superior
court judges being statutory and not
constitutional, officers are subject to
being abolished by the Legislature at
any time ! further believe that the
practice Of maintaining our supreme
court with active, live men, compe-
tent and capable of doing promptly
the work required of them, should
prevail This principle is carried out
by the laws of our sister states, New
Hampshire and Massachusetts, which
require the retirement of judges who
have reached the age of seventy.
believe that our municipal courts
should be given a wider jurisdiction
and that no appeal should be allowed
in cases under certain sum except
upon questions OF law. thus saving
to the State the sum of at least $780,
900 a biennial period. During the de-
bate in the House OF Representatives
at the time the superior courts were
established, the then representative
from Manchester, Mr.. Archibald,
clearly and distinctly warned the
House as to the conditions that would
arise relative to expense if the
change then urged should be adopted,
and what he then said has absolutely
come to pass. In this connection
think IL proper for me to say to you