The prison mirror. [volume] (Stillwater, Minn.) 1887-1894, 1891-03-26

How far ought wealth to be allowed to
protect criminals? Is it sound policy and
good morals to continue system of crimi-
nal court administration which makes an
immense difference in favor of the rich NAL.
efactOr? These are very practical and inn
pOrtant questions. Everybody knows that
as things 60 now it is almost impossible to
punish a wealthy man to the full extent of
the law. Let tive citizens of any state, one
poor and the other a millionaire. commit
exactly the same crime. and though their
past lives may be equally honorable and
clean their chances of escape from severe
punishment will be very different. There
is much foundation for the popular belief
that very rich man could commit an afro.
cOus murder without the least risk of the
gallOws. Nothing could be more hateful to
honest men or more demoralizing to society
than such feeling based on facts as patent
as they are ugly. The remedy must be
sought in one way alone. If it is to ba eff
fective AS long as every man accused of
crime is permitted to spend as much money
as he chooses in his own defense the ad-
vantage of the rich over the poor is certain
to exist. Lawyers, tempted by great fees,
will make a speciality of clearing wealthy
criminals by every trick that ingenuity can
devise They will bribe juries and hire wit
nesses by wholesale. dodge and twist until
the prosecution loses it's vigOr or until it's
witnesses die. and in some manner their
clients can be wholly cleared. or, at least,
saved from heavy penalties. The poor
prisoner has no such resources. He is given
fair defense at the public cost. but that is
all. 1t is all that any man accused OF crime
is Justly entitled to. No citizen of cOun-
try like the United States has valid moral
claim to better defense than the poorest
of his feliOw-m men is assured in any prOsecu-
ton by the State. The work of criminal
lawyers who get hugo sums for clearing
guilty men is contrary to public interests
and to sound principles of morality. 1t is
in the nature of shielding crime and multi.
plying otfenses against the laws. The way
to put an end to it is to have counsel as
signed by the court to every defendant in a
criminal case and paid out of the public
treasury. the fees of the attorney to be col
lected, like other costs, from the criminal,
when ever possible in all cases of cOnvic-
ton. This would not very greatly increase
the expense to the tax payers of maintain
ing the criminal courts. There might be no
increase at all. What was lost in attorneys
fees would be very likely to be gained in
the enormous reduction of cost in prOtracted
cases fought for years by criminals with
plenty of money. But be the extra burden
of taxation much or little. the people could
afford it for the sake of knowing that in 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 Offense
was ne better than that of his neighbOr.
The community would be spared the scan
dalons snectacle of wealth intronchod be.
hind great array of legal talent defying
the penalties of the law which no poor man
could hope to violate with impunity. The
greatest need of the republic to day is more
perfect equality in rights and privileges be-
tween the various classes of its citizens.
Its dangers lie in the drift toward special
powers and immunities for the rich and bit.
ter discomfort and wild outbreaks by the
proletarlat against injustice which lends
color of reason to their imaginary wrongs.
Whatever would tend to check this source
of possible trouble is well worth serious con-
sideration by all thoughtful and patriotic
Americans.-The Cleveland Leader.