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

1
duct is contempt) by parties, witnesses
counsel, and audience is undoubted, ou'
"cruel and unusual punishments art
forbidden. Fine and imprisonment
therefore. would seem to be the only pun
ishment for contempt Of court. If, then
a prisoner like Guiteau, in capital case
be sentenced to imprisonment for con-
tempt, what is to become of the trial
Is it to be adjourned for week, or
month, or year, until the sentence shall
have been executed: If so, would
not most prisoners who thought them
selves in danger of the gallows apply
themselves with persistent diligence to
misconduct in court, in order to go to
prison for it, and thereby postpone the
greater condemnation Meantime, the
jury must be kept together, and substan-
tally imprisoned themselves, or the trial
must be abandoned, at the risk of plea
by the prisoner, when it should COM
mence again, that he had already been
once put in jeopardy for the same ottense
IL must be apparent TO every person OF
ordinary understanding that such GRIM
inal trial cannot, practically. be delayed
or abandoned in order to punish con-
temp,s. 1t must proceed TO lis regular
end, however disagreeable the incidents
of its course may be.
II such trial could lawfully 90 on
while the accused was lying in jail per
haps during the whole trial for supposed
and adjudged contempt, of course the
trial could flow peacefully on, and reach
an early conclusion, but the right of rights
of the accused to be confronted with his
accusers and the witnesses, and 10 be
heard in his own defense, is denied.
True. it has once (and perhaps oItener}
been said that the prisoner who misbe'
HAYES in court by violent disturbance
waires this rgnt. To say that he yor.
teits it. would be more accurate ex-
preston, for the nature of waiver i
voluntary, and in such cases as ,hese, the
accused does not say, " | dispense with
my RICH; to attend the trial and confront
the witnesses, and assent to spending the
time in jail he says. on the contrary,
that he insists on being present and being
heard. If such conduct were naturally
waiver or forfeiture of these rights, 1t
is not easy TO see how constitutional and
intrinsic rights of this character can be
waived or forfeited consistently with the
cardinal objects of the Constitution itself.
If he can create a waiver by implication
drawn from misconduct, he can certainly
waive his rights directly and without, mis-
conduct. Can he waive trial by jury
of twelve men, and consent TO a trial by SIX
or one. or By the Court, Can he waive
an indictment, and consent to 90 to trial
on the accusation Of the prosecuting oth
Ger alone, And constitutional right
canno, be forfeited If he could so waive
or forfeit his rights, the question whether
he has in fact done so must, IN the ma.
ture of things, be determined BY the opin-
ion Of the judge, and so, all these sane
tons for life and liberty that have sprung
from dear experience, and have become
imbedded in English and American Jur-
isprudence, depend practically upon the
will of the judge only If this be true,
the accused, in capital case, can be de
livered or put to death with or without
the proceeding the law commands. &C
cording as the judge may think the pro-
prieties the case warrant. No Roman
tyrant ever claimed greater power, and
the lnquisi,ion never exercised one more
arbitrary or dangerous. The forms and
securities of the law must be applied IN
the trial of the greatest criminals as rig-
idly as in that OF the most innocent cii-
zen. We cannot decide in advance which
is the guilty and which is the innocent
if We could, there would be no need %.
courts of justice at all. Is It not far
better, then, 10 bear the evils Of disorder
ly behavior by those on trial for crime,
than TO recognize any power IN Judge
TO Danish the accused from the court aud
proceed without him. or close his mouth
against the utterance of evil words 4: 1t
is, no doubt, true that the judge has the
power to punish such con,empts by a
sentence not cruel and unusual, to be ex-
ecuted during the daily recess Of the
court, such for example, as solitary con-
fnement, etc., from the adjournment OF
/ The court TO its next opening; and, in
mos, cases, such a course would be like
". if steadily followed up, to stop the
misconduct. L, would seem to be clear,
also, that if a prisoner on trial should re-
sor, to physical violence, he could be phys
ically restrained as much as if he attempt
ed to run away. But suppose he only
make a disturbance with his voice, is ne
to be gagged: The accused has the
right to make defense, and this is a
right that belongs to him personally
He need not exercise that right, for 1t Is
plain he may plead guilty, or stand abso
lutely mute; but the question is, can he
be deprived of this right as a punishment
for con,emp, Of court: Could the Leg
stature of a single State be persuaded &c
decl.re by law that the right of self de-
fense b y ones own mouth against Grim
inal charge should in any instance de-
mend upon the opinion of a judge as tc
the conduct of the accused: And If the
prisoner ia gagged, for how long is it &c
be: Until the mos. critical part OF TIT
trial is passed.
! 1t will be seen from these queries ant
suggestions, out of many that could D.
made, that the whole matter is one OF op
/, posing considerations. On enc side arr
the great and fundamental securities o
l,.r. IL l;harty for all mon and all cases