Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1893-01-21
A Reviewer Reviewed.


all precedent and upsetting its own record,
had decided at length that one good count in
an indictment is not salty enough to save
four unsound ones, and
. That it is practically impossible for
Judge to select jurymen as the higher Court
declares they must be selected.
The JOURNAL sorely regrets that its knowl-
edge of law is truly limited Never in all its
career has it so poignantly felt its helpless
poverty of legal erudtion.
1t must, therefore, look at Tuesdays NemS
with an Impractical eye and grope through
ITS lingo with an unsteady pen.
In doing 50, it earnestly Graves the in
diligence of the News and the pity of the legal
fraternity.
Until last Friday it seems that no number
of bad counts in an indictment would save
an offender from the operation ard issues OF
"A good one and that one good count would
as effectively earn given penalty as though
all were good. This is in the abstract as the
legal editor would have us believe.
But the quotation from the Court, which
he prints, seems to bear upon the manner of
Ayirctts trial rather than upon the distinct
issue involved. The Court appears to think
that III this particular case the judicial quality
measurably abdcated its proper place on the
Bench and gave too much sway to the de-
tcrmined pursuit of Avrett by the prosecu-
ton. Notice the strong words, as quoted by
this particular legal editor of the News:
Forcing him the appellant) despite his
demurrer, into trial upon counts mhich lcere
had, was a prcjWdicidt error that no general
verdict could cure, notwithstanding there
was one good count in the Indictment.
When the complete opinion comes to us it
may, therefore, appear that no precedents
have really been accounted as obsolete, but
that the conduct of a certain case imperatively
demanded the tenderest rebuke the highest
Court could administer.
When the opinion reaches us it may be
found, too, by reading between the lines that
in no precedent, alleged to have been set aside,
was thele contest for supremacy between the
Autocracy of the Court and the Liberty of the
Press. This is a trial of strength which the
highest judicial aCumen seeks to avoid.
Much more unlikely the presumption that
the highest Court will manifest willingness
to assume the guardianship of public trustees
of an express trust who precipitately employ
the contessedly inexact law of libel against
their clientele in resentment of public talk
about their stewardship. Nor is the higher
Court captive under the Phillistines, conscious
of power to destroy, but unlike Sampson,
unwilling to pull down a column of the
Temple, knowing that, with Liberty. the
Majesty of Justice will also perish among the
ruins.
The legal editor of the Neaos discovers also
that the method of drawing juries, twenty
five years old, in the majority Of the counties
is declared illegal, and like the Bourbon,
whom be sometimes derldes, he thinks the
old road should not be widened, for the new
wagon may not lit the ruts.
In short, he argues that because Judge
does not and cannot know everyb body it is
wellnigh impossible for him to draw the
jury according to lar. In his own conclusive
words
No judge can possibly know personally
One-titth of the men whose names are ON the
books.
The judges difficulties are then deliberately
illustrated. To him the pollbooks and tax
lists, though they may approximately dis
close mems residences, are not albums OF
their intellectual physiognomies, nor direc-
tories showing the whisky-shops they attend,
nor lettered reports indicating by key their
social, political and religious rating.
Hence, the judges duty is made out to be
Onerous, almost impracticable-a duty from
which Judge, with his hands full of other
business, would be glad to be emancipated.
1t appears also that Judge Alvey assisted
in overruling himself in this connection;
that in the Troxell and Bill Williams cases
he held the late method good.
We cannot now understand what Judge
Alvey meant then any more than we can say
what he porticularly means now-unless, i'll
the light Of intervening history, his latest
opinion is frank admission that he erred
the other time.
But one thing is Certain-the Liberty of the
Press was not concerned in the Troxell
issue.
Nor in the Bill Williams atlair-at least not
until the JOURNALS red-hot ventilation OF
his well-earned reputation of an all-round
lirebug came to q heat too white 1t was
eventually in this case that thumbscrew
was discovered in the law of libel and applied
to the encouragement of all newspaper re-
marks derogatory to Mr.. Williams character
rs Il useful citizen and christian gentleman
1t was in this case that the JOURNAL first felt
the squeeze Of the iron hand and, strange to
say, by some invisible legal mechanism Mr..
Williams, the libeled, was not Mr. Will
liams, the client. But the JOURNAL felt
the ominous squeeze. 1t had in its al-round
pressure all the un-American admonltion a
tyrants grip can communicate 1t gave
us notice that our daylight discussion of the
danger of midnight incendiarism was
punishable by law, and its unwritten
utimdtuD, was--stop il!
What revelation That law can be en-
ployed to strangle the expression of public
sentiment against lawlessness That men,
talking not of remote perils-not of 1.-THE
pestilence which wasteth at MONDAY" but OF
the present, immediate danger of the con.
Stunning fire at midnight should be enjoin
ed from protesting against system under
which the hellish injustice is possible Of
liberating minister ofdestruction to property
and plenipotentiary of death to sleeping
women and children!
In this depression, however, we cannot trust
ourselves to give full vent in words to the
sense Of indignity with which we have re-
membered that damnable proceeding. Be
sides, the rich lexicon of hell is too poor il
synonymous terms and its fiery vocabulary
too coldly realistic of our conception ant
comprehension of the wickedness of thai