The record-union., 1896-10-09
THEY ARE SAFER AT HOME.

1t is charged in the dispatches that
two American citizens travelling in
England, a man and his wife, who are
residents Of San Francisco, have been
arrested in London charged with shop-
lifting, the larceny amounting to the
taking of some furs valued at S1O0. and
that both have been clapped into prison
cells, refused bail, and hearing de-
MED them for one week, because II is
the rule there that one arrested for
taken Is found with them, must remain
in jail full week, guilty or innocent.
and shall be refused bail.
If this is the law in England-which
the realm over which the Queen Of
Great Britain and Empress Of India
rules. Theft Is a grave charge 1t Is
true but it is not so heinous that 1t
should in any civilized land be classed
among unbaIlable offenses. The pre-
sumption Of law being In England as
with us In favor Of the innocence Of the
accused, and the purpose Of the law
being to secure the presence Of the ac-
cused person to answer to any judg-
ment that may be found against him,
bail in this country is taken in such
sum as win In the judgment of the
court secure the presence of the person
at the trial.
But If the rule of the law in England
is what it Is now charged to be, then
it is a country for tourists to steer
clear of under all circumstances. A
foreigner under this rule Is there at all
times liable to be clapped into jail upon
the complaint of any person who may
fancy that the stranger is a thief,
where alleged stolen property is found
in his baggage, and then be denied the
privilege Of bail and be compelled to
serve in a prison cell a full week for
having been the victim of malice, a
mistake, or the trickery of thieves who
may deposit stolen property in his
rooms
to any one, 1t will be seen that the WIS.,
itor in London puts his liberty at the
mercy of whoever chooses to deprive
him Of it. Assuming that the dispatches
correctly advise the public Of the case
under consideration, which we doubt
however, then the refusal Of bail and
the confinement in prison for week
without hearing the defense are out
RACES that should have correction. But
If it Is the law Of place the wrong can
not be corrected by anything we may
do except we retaliate and provide in
our codes that an English subject
charged with petty larceny or any
other theft shall be refused bail and
speedy hearing. That would bring John
Bull to terms In a twinkling, and 1t
would be simple justice. Unhappily we
cannot SO retaliate Our fundamental
laws forbid any such enactment the
breadth and charity Of American in
stitutions refuse to permit any such
barbarous legislation.
II the law and the custom is as is re-
ported in the case Of the Castles, then
English law is far from being that ex-
act and liberal system for the admin
istration Of justice that has been boast
ed, and the United States is in still an
other instance far and away In advance
of the United Kingdom
English women may travel alone
through the length and breadth Of this
republic perfectly secure in the faith
that they will be free from insult and
outrage, and that II unhappily they are
charged with a petty offense, with lar
ceny, petty or grand, they will not Of
| necessity be confined in a cell In the
County Jail and held without hearing
for a week, though they may be ready
for trial, and all the parties prepared
in an hour after the arrest.
Nor will these English women be de-
MED the privilege of giving security
for their appearance, that they may go
free and make preparation for their de-
fense. But American women should
keep clear Of England If the Castle
story is verify. So assuming, no
American woman can appear in Lon