The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-11-17
TUESDAY. NOVEMBER II. 1903.
The Right Of Appeal.

A short time ago Justice OaVlo "
Brewer, OF the United States Supreme
Court suggested that taking away OF the
right Of appeal as the one means OF
checking the fearful custom OF lynching.
The suggestion provoked much criticism.
and Justice Brewer In q recent NUMBER OF
the independent replies to his critics.
First OF all he calls attention to the 1ac1
that In England and In our Federal courts
UP to the last few years. there was no
right Of appeal in criminal cases, And
so he says he Is suggesting nothing new,
but merely return from that which has
been we'll tried, and, in his opinion, was
not found wanting In Justice to the indi-
vidual or to the public
Justice Brewer speaks Of the right OF
appeal in its broadcast eense, under which
every one defeated in a trial In one court
may. II he wishes, compel review OF
that trial before there is final Judgment
against him. Practically, says he. IT Is a
claim of right to two trials. and this Is
a greater right than is guaranteed by ths
Constitution of the United States. man
accused of crime has right under the
Constitution to one trial, and to speedy
trial, but not to two trials. No right OF
appeal Is provided in the Constitution
Nor is it a natural right" says JUS
tice Brewer. ut is true" he goes on
..that in case OF a supposed crime the
q state owes to the public and the accused
the duty OF providing one impartial and
competent tribunal to determine the
4 question OF alleged guilt, as also to every
Z individual who insists that some right
of his has been denied, q like tribunal to
protect or enforce such right" But he
denies that the State also Is under obllga-
ton to provide second tribunal to In
ouire whether the first has erred, for II
man is entitled to second tribunal.
why not third, and so on, ad flnem,
The right of appeal, Justice Brewer points
B out is q statutory privilege, and ono
which the State may give and which 1t
may take away
Having disposed Of that phase OF the
subject, he goes on to discuss the effects
Of the unrestricted right Of appeal, espe-
cially In criminal cases, ''1n the first
place" says he. .'lt tends to prevent the
punishment Of. crime and by way of
illustration no mentions that recently
in Kentucky, when a man convicted OF
murder was sentenced to be hung. one OF
his lawyers publicly said to the court, 1T
will be long day before that sentence
M Is carried into effect" by which he meant
that an appeal would be taken and every
bubble of law employed to delay, II not
4 TO defeat. the sentence. He also points
out, that In the Appellate Court, the aues-
81 ton Is not one OF tho guilt or innocence
OF the convicted party. but whether or
not he was found guilty In legal way,
In other words, what errors. II any, were
committed by tho trial court. If there
were errors, II any of tho technical rules
were violated the case Is sent back for &
new trial. "And when one recalls the
multitude of rules which has been laic
down in respect to trials" he adds. ~
n not strange that the Appellate Cour
finds that there has been error ant
awards new trial" All these matters
3 says Justice Brewer, combine In favo
OF the defendant, against the public. a
experience shows, and often result In
xuilty mans escaping punishment. Sucl
= result encourages crime. for If the evil
disposed believe that there is little proba
bility of punishment they Will not b
deferred from crime. I'VE shall check tn
Increase of crime" he concludes. ''onl
when the wouldbe wrong-doer feels tina
there is a moral certainty that his Grim
will be promptly punished" And he asks
us It strange that a community, incense
Il by some atrocous offense, aware of tt
common experience Of criminal proceed
ings. takes the law into its own hand
and summarily Furnishes the offender:
He then takes up the question OF apes
In civil cases. and shows that where co
y porations are sued, their main object is
get the case before the Appellate Cour
They care very little for the trial in Il
lower court. In this court they do lit
but raise objections and make their fig!
+ before the Appellate Court. In this Wa
they manage to delay proceedings, and !
y points out that 1t il an old trick of Il
y railroadg In suits for damages, to for
Il the plaintiff who has obtained verdi
10 compromise rather than to have b
case reviewed by the Appellate cou,
with the attendant delay sometimes
years. This phase OF the subject is d
* cussed In extenso. but We have not spa
10 consider 1t further. We pass on 10 I