occupied in the performance of useless formality. The 

 punishment of his offence wliich might have been useful as 

 an example to others, is deferred until perhaps the reason for 

 it is forgotten and the value of the example is lost. Thus, 

 if a man commits a crime serious enough, it seems to be 

 considered that he deserves well of the Republic, and is 

 entitled to a certain amount of solemn trifling, even if it is 

 expensive to the people and burdensome to himself. I be- 

 lieve that all this could be remedied, that provision could be 

 made for sentencing offenders who have pleaded guilty, 

 forthwith after they have confessed their guilt, either by 

 judges of the lower court, or by some judge of the Superior 

 Court sitting at some other time and place than a regular 

 session of that court. 



The constitution of Massachusetts provides that "no 

 subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or offence 

 until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and for- 

 mally described to him." This was the rule of common 

 law, and our ancestors thought it of importance enough to 

 the citizen to deserve a place in our Bill of Rights. Let us 

 consider for a moment the practical working of this rule. 

 In the first week of October next, the grand jury will have 

 to consider accusations made against probably something 

 more than one hundred persons. They are aided in their 

 deliberations by the advice of the district attorney and his 

 assistant, and the indictments which tliey find are drawn as 

 accurately as the nature of the case will admit by those of- 

 ficers. After their deliberations are concluded, the grand 

 jury report their indictments to the court, and adjourn. 

 They have considered over a hundred cases of which they 

 knew nothing at all at the beginning of their sitting. They 

 have had but a week to consider the evidence, and make 

 up their judgment, and cause the indictments to be drawn. 



