Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1882-03-14

secured and regulated by law than the
dignity and intelligence of its administra.
ton, and nothing is more clear than that
public confidence, respect and reverence
for the tribunals of justice cannot be lost
without incalculable injury, even if such
tribunals are in truth learned and pure.
Order, dignity. and solemnity, particular
/ " in criminal trials, are among the mos,
influential Of the causes that command
public respect. and they, therefore. ought
to be practiced and insisted upon to the
uttermost possible extent consistent with
the fundamental securities for freedom
and fair play in the defense of persons
accused of crime All this, doubtless,
most intelligent persons will concur in
agreeing TO at once. They naturally,
then, inquire why it is that in this great
7 trial so much that was other than orderly.
digni6ed. and solemn has happened with
out being prevented or punished by the
presiding judge.
In considering this question, we must
remember that the most of what was uu-
scemly came from the accused himself.
1t has been a cardinal doctrine in coun-
tries in which the right of self-defense
against criminal accusations, for the Sc
curity of life and liberty, has been rec
ognized, that the accused cannot be tired
or condemned without his personal pre-
sence, or without having actually answer.
ed the charge made against him. So,
under the earlier common law, if the ac-
cused refused to plead, no further step
could be taken in his trial, and he was
pm, to torture to compel him to say
whether he was guilty or not. Later
more humane provision took the place OF
this. in treating a refusal to plead as
plea Of not guilty, and proceeding With
the trial. In our own constitution /, was
provided, in Article g Of the amendments,
that:
In all criminal prosecutions, the &C
cu>ed shall enjoy the right ~ speedy anu
public trial, ~ an impartial jury OF The
state aud district wherein the crime shall
have been committed, which district shall
have been previously ascrrtaincd by law
aud 10 De Informed or the nature aud cause
OF the accusation; % be confronted with
the witnesses sgainst him; 10 have com
pulsory process for ohtsining witnesses IN
his favor, and 10 have the assistance OF
counsel FOR his defense
Under the provision, it is obvious that
the trial of no person accused OF high
crime to say nothing Of Others can law
fully 90 on without his personal presence,
and that he cannot be deprived Of the
right of speaking in his own defense.
Counsel are merely the agents and assis-
taats of their client, and If he chooses to
speak Tor himself, their functions are for
the moment suspended. II is we'll for
| liberty and innocence tn At this Is SO, FOR
/ If we once admit that trial can 90 for
ward either in the absence of the accused
or when he is denied the night OF self de-
Tense, one Of the create safeguards
against malice, tyranny, and oppression
j. DESTROYED, and in evil times the power
either TO proceed without the presence OF
the accused. or 70 send him out of court
for any cause, or gag. or otherwise
keep him silent. might be used 50 as to
p-rvert the courts of Justice into engines
I of the most wicked and dIea dful tyranny
and oppres ion. Consistentently with
the free exercise Of these rights, there eH-
ists the plain power of the Court to
regulate the power of It's proceedings to
/ determine the number of counsel wh6
may speak how many speeches may
I be made on each side and to TX limits
Of time etc. Thus if only two speeches
on a side are allowed, and the accused
insists upon addressing the jury, tor IN
stance, in has own behalf, /, IS competent
for the court TO count that as one OF the
limited number of spe eches allowed, aud
pu, the prisoner to mis- election whether
he will speak for himself with one coun-
sci. or allow both his c,,nsel to speak iol
him, and keep silent himself.
The constitutional provision We have
quoted was the outgrowth OF the eSperl'
ence of history, and it was designed u
put it beyond the power of either the ex'
ecu,ive, the legislative. or the Judicial
bodies Of the country 10 exercise any dis
cre,ion upon the subject. When, II
times Of peace and good government,
case of gross crime occurs, we are quite
too apt TO be be impatient Of the restraints
and securities thrown by law around TIT
administration of justice, and cry out 10
speedy Justice regardless of forms ant
methods. forgetting that the righteou
. indignation of to-day may be, and to-
often is, the wild prejudice of the moi
or the corrupt or bold act Of the tyrsnn,
Of tomorrow, and that a just publl
opinion in one case. if allowed to hav
sway. becomes the facile and fatal prece
. dent and temptation for the grossest IN
Justice in another. To depart, therefore
even in what seems the plainsst case
, from the systematic and orderly proceed
ure Of the law on account OF our unanl
nous belief in the enormity Of the of
Tense. in order to accomplish quick ret
: ribution for a great crime. Is only, Il
principle and in fact, the resort TO popu
! lar opinion as the test of crime and pun
isbment in a particular case, and Z
: stand really upon the same ground-on
T IL different in degree--as those who, i
the case of Guiteau, have attempted t
take his life by private violence. Doe
any one wish to 60 back to the instit'i
tons. if they can be called such, Of nv
hundred years ago. when the tenure
, every mans life and property depende
non the uopular temper Of the hour, c