The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-09-11
A DANGEROUS TECHNICALLY.

frequently put at disadvantage by the consti-
tutional limitations whereby it is barred in
all criminal proceedings from the right of
the change of venue, This principle is the
exclusive prerogative of the accused, anS is
vested in him by the express terms o. the
sixth article, wherein it is declared that "In
all criminal prosecutions the accused shall
ENJOY the right to a speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been COM
mitted." This rule is followed by a similar
one in the State constitutions, except that in
the latter the venue is confined to counties.
The clauses in the fundamental laws
of States and nation were inserted as bar
riers and safeguards against the tyrannical
English practice of dragging subjects from
their homes and friends and placing them on
trial where the court and the entire legal
machinery were simply the instruments of
the crown. But in theory, at least and al
most wholly so in practice, it is impossible to
carry an American citizen beyond the reach
of those who would contend for the constitu-
tional right of fair and impartial trial for
the accused. There is no court in the land
to do the bidding of the executive authority
except also at the behest of Justice 1t is
matter of great moment to the people that
the American judiciary has the true dignity
to stand aloof from the influences that
control and dictate the legal steps
in foreign countries This fact, coupled with
the conviction of the masses that every man
shall be guaranteed in his legal rights in
any and every court and locality within the
limits of the country renders the constitu-
tional provision cited less vital now than
when adopted. Experience in this country
has shown that the sentiments and passions
of the surrounding people are more likely to
influence our courts than any spirit of sub
serviency between the judiciary and execu-
tive. This state of things has prevailed to
such an extent in the Southern States since
the close of the rebellion that federal prose-
cutions for infractions of the law upon civil
rights and elections have degenerated
into mere farce, and have be-
come the object of contempt of the
law breakers themselves. When prosecution
has been instituted against a bulldozer or a
manipulation of tissue ballots, if the defend
ant and the community where he lives are
unable to ridicule the case out of court they
shoot it out. True, they do not always fire
upon the judge but the assassination of
witnesses is common. There is method in
the work. Killing a judge would not de-
stroy the case, but wiping out the witnesses,
who are in possession of damaging evidence
does. In the recent case in Texas, wherein
Judge Haughn lost his life, and in all SINH
lar cases, it would seem that the gov
eminent should have the right to
change the venue to such locality where
the rights of the public could also be impair
tally enforced. In such strong exceptional
cases the constitution ought to provide for a
remedy But there is none, and because
there is not the wholesale butcheries OF the
ku-klux were made possible, and the perpe-
traitors comparatively free from punishment
Relief from this ugly predicament was aimed
at in a provision whereby certain causes
could be transferred from the State to fed
eral courts, but the purpose failed of its OBJ
ject. Thousands of bloody demonstrations
are on record to show that the surrounding
community can break the force of prosecu-
tions in federal courts as readily almost as
In cases where the government prosecutes
Ole of its citizens, in theory and in fact, the
rights and welfare of the entire people are
represented by the government. And where
trials are to be mad in localities where the
prejudice, passion and symp thy are against
the prosecution it is little snort of wicked
farce to drag through the form of a judicial
examination. The history of such cases
shows that the guilty usually escape, and
that the innocent, especially those who have
been witnesses, or otherwise instrumental in
the effort to enforce the law, are
generally punished. Sometimes the penalty
is one thing and sometimes another. 1t is
always sufficiently severe to accomplish the
end in view. If witness is very damaging
his lot is assassination. When lynching and
social ostracism will do these mllder meth
DDS are employed. But the chief point to
the whole business now is for the law-abiding
and order-loving people of the country to
decide whether a reign of terror ought to
longer be permitted to run, when the re-
moval of mere technicality in the law of
the land would stop it, The question is suf-
ficiently serious to merit the attention of all
good men in the country