The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-11-21
TWO TYPICAL JOBS OF TIE
JUDGES

=, Inc decision in the John Paris and T,
~: w lllams cases. carried to the court
Oh CRIMINAL appeals from Dallas connt,.
are traught with lamentable decrSe
vi encouragement for right thinking and
laW-loVlng citizens. 1t is not necessary
Tor the News to assert whether tbe
lorlher assaSsinated Il man for n price
VI Whetner he Is an innocent martyr.
II Is moi the purpose of the News TO
assert or deny that defendant Williams
chopped his wife to death and tlImbled
her body out of the upper window and
buried it beside their house. II is only
necessary to direct attention to the fact
that the methods of dealing with these
cases Ill the courts have diSgusted the
people who believe in law. Justice and
common sense. If these men are NOT
guilty, OF course they have been very
cruelty treated. If they are guilty thny
should have been punished long ago
In both cases defendants have been found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt nv com
petent jurors. and on appeals both iudg-
mentS have been reversed. As strange rs
II may appear to an ordinary person of
common sense, the question of guilt has
not oeen considered or even alluded to
by the court of appeals in either of the
cases. SO far as anybody can tell from
the opinions of the court the material
points in the cases are not whether two
people have been aSSaSSinated by The
accused men, but whether the district
Judge committed an error in his mode
OF conJuring justice. Without ATTEMPT
ing to saddle the responsibility upon this
court or that court, it is not Il whit too
emphatic to declare the results in these
two cases rank with the poison of mis-
chleyous foolishnesS. Somebody is re-
SponSiblc. The load should be fastened
upon somebody. If the statutes of the
state take away from the higher court
the right Ill such cases to consider the
main fact and to disregard technical
matter or manner of procedure where the
mann tact OF guilt or innocence is perfect
ly clear. then the statutes should be
changed in the interest of justice 1T the
imperative dictate of common sense.
Unless the purpose Of the law is to give
the witnesses time to disappear or die off,
to disturb the peaceable people in their
private business by calling them into
court againand again topile up court costs
TO the skies, to prolOng the life or the
unlawful Imprisonment of the accused.
to permit the judges to shoot craps"
with the blind goddess. then there should
certainly be no statute that depriveS the
higher courts of the right to consider
the main question in such Il case and to
disregard immaterial points in reaching
substantial justice without unnecessary
expenditure, perambulation and delay.
The people who regard matters from Il
standpoint of justice and common sense
will consider the results in the Paris and
Williams eases as expensive samples of
nONious nonsense. The people are not
to blame for errors and failures that have
attended these cases excepting so far as
they are responsible for the election
of the judges. The delay and miscarriage
G.e not chargeable TO stubborn jurors or
10 absent witnesses. The trouble lies
ut the door of the judiciary. Some judge
or judges has or have brought down upon
Dallas and other counties these unneceS-
Sary and diScouraging abortions of Grim
mali Justice If there is decline of conf
denCe in the courts and loss of wholesome
respect for the law as officially admins
tered such DEFICIENCIES and defaults on the
part of the average citizen may he traced
by even blind man largely if not eN-
cluSively IL adjudicationS like those hand
ed out ~ the people of Dallas county
in the John Paris and l.. f. Williams
cases There is something sadly out of
fix editorial from Galveston
News.