The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-03-27
Wealthy Criminals.

How far ought wealth 20 be allowed TO pro-
tect criminals, Is It sound policy and good
morals to continue "A system of criminal court
administration which makes an immense DIFF.
ference IN favor of the rich maleiactor, These
are very practical and Important questions.
Everybody knows that ~ things 60 now it ~
almost impossible 10 punish a wealthy man to
the full extent Of the law. Let two citizens of
ANY State, one poor and the other
millionaire, commit exactly the same crime.
aud though their past lives may D.,
equally honorable and clean their chances ~
escape from severe punishment will be very
different There ~ much foundation for tho
popular belief that a very rich man could
commit an atr0cious murder without the least
risk of the .allows. Nothing could be- more
hateful 10 honest men or more demorallxn-
20 society than such feeling based on facts
ms patent "a they are ugly. The remedy
must be sought in one way alone II
II Is 20 hc effective. As long as every
man accused Of crime X permitted o.
spend rs much money as he chooses in
his own defense the advantage Of the rich
over the poor IL certain 10 exist. Lawyers
tempted by great fees. viii make a speciality
of clearing wealthy criminals by every trick
that ingenuity can devise. They will hr.e
iuIies and hire witnesses 10y wholesale. dodge
and twist until the prosecution loses IT'S Ngnr
or until it, witnesses die. and IN some manner
their clients can be wholly cleared. or. 40
least, saved from heavy penalties The poor
prisoner has no such resources. lie IS given .
fair defense at the public cost. but that Is
all. Ii IS all that any man accused
of crime is Justly entitled %. No citizen ~ %
country like the United States has a valid
moral claim 20 q better defense than tho
poorest Of his fellow men IL assured IN any
prosecution by the State. The work Of crimi-
nal lawyers who get huge sums for clearing
guilty men Is contrary 20 public interests ind
20 flrfp frl| is Df
nature Of shielding crime and multiplying
otienses against The laws. The way 90
put an end 20 10 IS 20 have
counsel assigned 10y the court 20 every
defendant IN a criminal case and pa!d out Ot
the public treasury the fees Of the attorney
10 be collected like other costs. from tho
criminal. whenever possible, in all cases Of
conviction. This would not very greatly IN
crease the expense 10 the tax payers of nam
tanning the criminal courts. There might bee
10 increase at all What was lost IN attor-
neys' fees would be very likely 20 be- gained
IL the enormous reduction OF costs m
protrarted cases fought for years by criminals
with plenty Of money. But be- the extra bur
den of taxation much OF little. the people
could afford IL for the sake of knowing that 10
the courts Of Justice the rich and poor were
on the same footing and that one mans chance
Of escape from the Just penalty Of onense was
no better than that Of his nelshbOr. The
community would be spared the scandalous
spectacle Of wealth entrenchel behind
a great array Of legal talent defying
the penalties Of the law which no
poor man could hope 10 yiolAte with i'm
punity. The greatest need Of the republic
today il more perfect equality in rights and
privileges between the various Glasses OF its
citizens It's dangers lie in the drift toward
special powers and immunities for the rich,
and bitter discomfort and wild outbreaks by
the prOletariat against injustice. which lends
rtran
Whatever would tend 10 check tins source If
possible trouble is well worth Serious consid-
Grafton by all thoughtful and patriotic Ameri-
cans.-Cleveland Leader.