The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-02-12


public speakers. Most of this criticism is ad-
verse, but occasionally a prominent man pats
him on the back Speaking at Birmingham the
other day Prof. Max Mueller said it was of little
use to grow angry about the land question, or to
handy hard names. Let them study the ques-
ton historically. Let them see how the various
kinds of tenure of land arose. He had no doubt
that history would show that there
were tenures Of land to which
originally heavy conditions, such as
military service, were attacked, and that
many of those conditions We're no longer full
filed Even in more recent times history might
show that common land was Enclosed IN defiance
of historical rights. Those, therefore, he said,
who had any regard for the past and for histor-
zeal rights-the great Conservative party-ought
not to be so angry with Mr.. Henry George.
But when Mr. Henry George dealt in mere the
ory, such as the divine right of every person to
portion of Gods earth, and the sinfulness of
calling piece of land their own for which they
had labored, if not with their arms and with
their spade, yet with their brain and with their
pen, he believed, he said that even that most
liberal city of Birmingham would hardly do
homage to George v What, however, he should
like to protest against, he added, was the cutlery
that Mr.. Georges theories were dangerous" He
did not believe it. They all held theories
which might be called dangerous but which
they never thought of carrying out-sueh, for
instance, as loving their neighbors exactly like
themselves And yet, he observed, that theory
was not considered very dangerous even though
it led some Of the early Christians to have 'all
things in common
A writer in the Times propounds to Mr. George
number of questions ike these: Does he pro
pose to confine his drastic proposals to land, or
TO deal with other kinds of property in the
same mannerl If he should write sew
eral books, each as successful as Prog
ress and Poverty" and thereby amass
considerable sum of money, are his children,
after his death, to be left in undsturbed
possession thereof, this being wealth not one
fraction of which was the result of their own
labor2 Suppose that, in a generation or two,
this wealth were to be invested in the purchase
of land, would it be iniquitous for Mr.. Georges
descendants to receive the produce of that land.
the ''unearned increment as it might be, so far
as they were concerned Rather pertinent in
quiries these, but our fellow -countryman is very
busy, and it is hardly likely he will find time
think it eXpedient to reply to them
UNCERTAINTIES OF THE JURY SYSTEM.
English juries do not always convict. They
do not always agree; nor do they always take
the view of the case that the presiding judge
seeks to impress upon them. A notable Illus
tration of these things was furnished at the Old
Bailey last Saturday night Wolfe and Bon
durand, Swiss and Frenchman, had been on
trial for a whole week for having explosive ma
pose The case was supposed to present com
plicated plot for blowing up the German en-
bassy Scotland Yard put in its best ticks.
The Solicitor general and Mr.. Poland pressed
the prosecution of the case with remarkable
vgor for such big bugs. Justice Hawkins
watched every point like cat watches mouse,
and from personal observations, l feel sure he
thought at least that he had em-that is, both
the accused and the jury. But he hadn't. After
deliberating four hours the Jury announced that
there was no possibility of their agreeing. The
judge almost wept at the miscarriage
of justice through the obstinacy of one wretched
man. 1t was not stated in court how the jury
stood, but obviously the opinion prevailed on
the Judges bench and among those interested in
the prosecution that the obstinate unit was hold
ing out against conviction. Thus the matter
went before the public. In America the jury
men would have been interviewed and the facts
ascertained. But that would be an awful thing
here. So most of the papers had leading articles
the following Monday deploring the attitude of
the obstreperous juryman and pointing out the
evil effect the disagreement would have in en-
couraging other conSpirators. Then light broke
in. Several members of the jury rushed into
print, informing an astOnished press and public
that it was all a mistake; that the eleven made
up their minds to acquit Immediately upon re-
firing, and that the one who favored a conviction
could give them no other reason than that The
went into the jury-box preiudieed against the
prisoners because they We're foreigners. and he
was stiIl prejudiced, and would never vote to let
them off. . There was an informer in the case,
one of the most repulsive looking men, / should
think that ever stood in witness box. His
statement evidently not credited. Between
his features and the intelligent phiz of the pris
oner Wolfe, the contrast was very great. This
was the first informer had seen in England
Taking him as type am sure L dontever want
to meet any of the species alone on dark night.
The accused will have much sympathy in their
next trial, the opinion having got abroad that
they are the victims of putup job, in which Il
shabby part is being played by the police.
HIT