The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-08-15
TUESDAY. AUGUST u. 1902
IHitNCII law.

me cowardly assassination Of Labor.
counsel for Captain Drsyfus, is another
disersceful chapter in this most disgrace
fui story. The opponents Of Dreyfus were
aetermined from the start that he should
be dishonored. They secured his convic-
tion upon forged testimony and banished
MIN 10 Devils Island. That, they mag
3ned. was the last Of Dreyfus, but the
civilized world demanded that he be
brought back and given a fair trial The
case was re-opened and "a brave lawyer
was making It so very hot for the plot
ters tnat they determined 90 put him out
NJ me way. Surely France IS making q
sorry spectacle Of herself in this wretched
AFFAIR
one Of the strange phases OF ITench
law was brought into view I'm the aliocu-
lion between Dreyfus and Casimir-Perier
on saturday. Droyfus said that when his
trial came on in 1894 his counsel NJ. De
mango. told him that NJ. Waldeck-Rous-
seau mad brought 20 him, Demange, the
decision Of the President Of tho Republic
that Dreyfus' appeal for public trpl
would be granted provided that the origin
OF the bordcreau and the other documents
10 re used against Dreyfus remained
secret. otherwise that II should be private.
what strange and incomprehensible
system Is It that puts a man upon trial
for his life and yet refuses him the fullest
access 10 the source of all proof that is
TO be used against him? How can be be
said 10 have a trial unless he IS permitted
80 inquire into everything connected with
document produced against him that he
may SHOW IL TO be genuine or forged?
The very essence Of a trial IS that the
accused shall be confronted with his ac-
cuser and with the witnesses against him
ana that he shall he permitted to cross
examine the witnesses 10 ascertain
whether what they allege TO be facts IS
what Is based upon their own knowledge
or upon hearsay and rumor. Examination
into the sources and origin Of a document
takes the place IN documentary proof OF
cross examination Of witnesses An oval
testimony. II IS impossible 10 conceive Of
a trial Of a man for his life under Eng
lish or American law In which the ac-
cused would be denied the right TO eX-
anime into the origin and source Of a do
cumenl produced as evidence 10 convict
him I II II were possible that such a
thing could happen the Judge trying the
case would order the acqulttal Of the
prisoner az once. and II he allowed a con-
victon. an appellate tribunal would i'm
f.r -fr
ton
We have never known OF but one case
In this country which had even the sem
olance of a denial 20 the accused Of the
fullest opportunity to investigate every
thing connected with the origin and
source OF document produced against
him.
In the trial OF Aaron Burr Chief Justice
Marshall ruled that a subpoena duces
tecum should be issued against the Presi-
dent Mr.. jefferson. commanding him 10
uroduce IN court certain letters In IFS Dos
session. Mr.. jefferson refused 20 obey the
summons upon the ground that the CHIEF
Magistrate could not be required to leave
the seat Of government 10 serve any mere
private interest. lie declared. however.
mat the letters were az the service OF
tao court and that he was ready TO send
them.
whether Judge Marshall would have
permitted any conviction OF Burr under
these circumstances cannot DE told. as n
ruled that no case was made against him
upon other grounds.
The bare suggestion Of secret trial Of
a man for his life f. in itself utterly alb
horrent 20 an Americans mind. But n It
s. 90 be secret trial and upon conditions
that may erectually preclude the accused
from making out his defense. II must
make every American thank heaven that
he lives an MS own great glorious and
Tree country.