Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-03-31
The foIowing - crowded ~ III ou

The following was crowded out of our
issue Of yesterday:
Judge Emmons, during the progress of
the trial Of the case United States VS. c..
G.. Ward for violation of Internal revenue
law, made some general references to
former trials, and said be did not desire
TO make the subject Of these penal
statutes INN wing, but he did not intend
to =. abandon It while the impolitic,
and he might say seventies almost
impossible Of enforcement remain
u~nmOdifed. His duties under them
were often painful in the ex-
tr5me. With laws so excessively punt
tive that heightened and honest Jurors de-
manded the most conclusive proof before
they would convict, the Congress which
had created them had so limited the
power Of the administration, that not
over Oue-fourth of the professional
force necessary to prepare cause for
trial was afforded. On Tuesday q
defendant, indicted for retailing liquor,
as acquitted, whom I presume many
thought guilty. A single witness sWOre
be supposed the defendant was the pro-
priet1r Of a hotel, from the fact that he
employed him. There was no CORRIDORS
tive testimony. It was q fact capable of
the reediest proof. It could have been
made certain beyond all controversy.
The charge 1 felt compelled to give, look
ing TO the fact that it was a State prison
O~iIsnss, made the scquitral by the jury
highly proper. 1 am frequently perpleXed
as to what my duty is; whether to hold
rigidly to the old common law rules,
demand 4 full complignce in all cases
with their strict requirements, or simply
admit what is relevant, and as too fre-
quently occurs in modern courts, leave
the counsel TO wrangle it u before the
jury.
/ hsd no doubt L was and am pursuing
the right course, aud should now have
lone but for the evil example of going
through tho form offs trial when the pub
lie knows the offender is guilty, but be
escapes because of the irrational and use
less severity Of the penalty and the mad
equate instrumentaLities provided by the
law for conviction. j cannot, however,
believe that the duties ofthe court should
be modified by the imperfect organization
Of the force, whose duty il is to bring ths
facts before 10. While / sympethiz5 great
ly with u Ov6r-burdsned and able Dis
trict Attorney, / cannot submit a case TO
the jury whose verdict finding the citlzsn
guilty Of some trivial and accidental Of
Tense necessarily sends him to prison for
years without careful Judicial criticism,
and pointing out fully those defects a the
evidence which my " experience de-
tects.
All this is but ech0ing the complaints of
the Bar. There, among you, gentlemen,
the criticisms are loud n frequent. But
1 submit, ia all respect this Is but cheap
kind of patriotism. II is easy TO ind fault
with unjust laws, and you may readily
ths thanks Of clients with b
suffsrings YOU seemingly 50 warmly SYM
pathfzs. But pardon me If 1 suggest to
those clients and to the people that it is
upon the heads Of the lawyers Of the
country that the responsibility for these
evils rests. They should be held response
bic for them. If the influential members
Of the Bar in nay circuit alcne-those only
who appear in its courts-WOuId eXpend
half the zeal in a woil-Organized effort for
5be amendment of these statutes, the rem
sdy would be afforded in sixty days after
he next sitting OF Congress. Let the
and readily appreciated defects
poiDted out, the far more beneficial
repressive effects of more rational
and kindly enactments be stated IN a re-
3pectful and earnest mode, and the desired
result is as certain AZ ths action is easy.
To be influential, reputation Of bad mo-
ives and all dippant criticism, OF course,
would be avoided. ! ave a right from
own activity in this matter 70 make
ihe appeal. IbaYe spent much time and
lard labor. and some hundreds of dollars,
n as vet an abOrtive attempt to accom-
llish this alone. I shall be glad to coop
rate in all appropriate measures for the
requirement. Gf such alterations in these
tatutes as will render an Indictment high
violence that the defendant has done that
which good citizens viii condemn. As
hey now stand 3 most injurious spirit of
opposition 10 the Government Is engen-
A sort Of Ireland in America is
by the greet number Of arraign-
for crimes of the highest theoreti-
al character, 50 far az punishment
3 concerned, while the facts show
n absence of al criminal intention
= violate the laws of the country.
.urely there should be a difference !
4 punishment beiween the deliberate,
sandulent 0nsssisin 70 comply With 4