The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-03-23
NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE.


The remarks made by this paper in
reference to the indelicacy of the WON
en- who crowded into the court in
Washington to listen to the details in
the Pollard Brecknridge case, were
perhaps a little one-sided That is to
say, they were made applicable only
to one sex.
They were however. undeniably
just, and meet with the approval of our
readers as far as we have learned. It
is offensive to that sense of delicacy
with which pure women are associated,
to behold them sitting, with unblush-
ing brows, eagerly deyouring every sa-
laeious morsel that is thrown out by
the process of examination and cross
examination, in such cases as that now
under consideration.
1t is said that what is sauce for the
goose should be sauce for the gander.
Then how about those prurient men
who take delight in atten ling court
when seandalous disclosures are to be
made? If the rule holds good there is
not a pins choice between the male
and female deVourer of court offal, and
! the crowds of bald heads spoken of in
the dispatches as flocl1ing to the court
room are no better and no worse than
the females who were shut out.
As a rule, open courts are conducive
to the ends of justice. But in some
cases it would be clearly for the public
good, in the interest of morality and
purity, if they were cleared of specta-
tors and no one allowed to be present
but those persons necessary to the con-
duet of, the proceedings.
Sometimes sensitive girls and women
are exposed to cross-examinatien on
subjects that are severely trying to
their modesty, and a crowd of grin
ming men are facing them enjoying
their confusion, and taking additional
delight in their evident distress over
the details of some disgusting recital
1t is an ordeal that they ought not to
be compelled to pass through, and they
should be protected from it by the
court
Justice would say there should not
be one law or rule as to men and an
other as to women in the right to be
present at a trial in open court, Yet,
we presume, the majority would say
there are some things that men might
hear with propriety that ought not to
be said in presence of women. Wheth-
er that would stand the test of legal
argument or not, it must be conceded
! that women have as much natural
right as men to attend an open court,
and to stay or not as they choose when
anything indicate, or what is COM
monty called spicy" is the subject of
! inquiry. And if the court in its discre-
ton may Danish the women, it may
also turn out the men. And we are of
the opinion that in many cases such
as we have alluded to, they would do
right to exercise that discretion in both
instances.
We find no fault with Judge Brad
ley for excluding the women who
crowded into the court to listen to the
revelations of a sensational character
in the Breckenridge case, but we think
he might have gone step further
without improperly and cleared the
court of the no less curious and morbid
and scandal-loving males. Men are in
poor business when they can find moth
ing better to do than to spend their
time in court rooms reveling in nasti-
ness and snickering over the vices and
follies of humanity. The male court
idler is little better than the female
hunter after ''racy'' gossip.
|