The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-08-31
The Administration of Law.
One of the Most Serious Problems Con-
fronting the Country.

A few weeks ago Justice Brewer. of
Tie United States Supreme Court,
complained that the laws delays are
being unduly aggravated in criminal
cases. The statement, made by so dis
tinguished a jurist, attracted univer-
sal attention. 1t was discussed far
and wide as being a portentous dis
covery-as being, in fact, an evil
threatening the foundation of our in
stitutions, which had escaped our no
tiee up to this time, and which it had
been the happy privilege of a distin-
guished citizen to point out to us at
this late day. Yet, it is safe to say.
that ninety-nine out of a hundred OF
the plain people in this country real
lied long ago that the evil existed, and
that Mr.. Justice Brewers announce
ment conveyed TO them nothing more
startling in the way of novelty than
If he had asserted solemnly from his
seat on the bench that the sky was
blue.
Francis Rawle, of Philadelphia, the
president of the American Bar Asso-
citation, echoed, in his address at the
Hot Springs meeting, the other day,
the sentiments of Justice Brewer. Cit
ing two State acts, passed, within the
year, by the Legislatures of New Jer-
sey and Pennsylvania, the one provid-
ing that the supreme court, or any
justice thereof, might, at the instance
of any person indicted, remove into
that court any pending indictment;
the other providing that defendant,
convicted of murder, might petition
the supreme court, if the latter be
convinced of substantial doubt as to
his guilt, for a rule for a new trial,
which rule is to be passed on by the
trial court. Citing these two cases, Mr..
Rawle said:
These may be considered as acts passed for the
purpose OF delaying the administration Of Grim
inal justice and Of bringing it into disrepute.
They are contrary 10 the traditions OF COM
mon law. and, / eelieve, TO the best judgment
Of the profession.
Even so conservative a journal as
the ''New York Tribune" sees in such
legislation a grave menace to the pub
lie veal. 1t says:
Is not our legal practice being wrenched from
fits true purpose through this constant effort to
make new loopholes for the criminal who can
afford the luxury Of stays, appeals and writs Of
error? Our criminal machinery has lost its
terroTs in many States 70 men bold enough
and powerful enough 20 fight out and annul
its verdicts.
Do We not oyervalue individual security and
give little heed 10 the security and dignity
OF society? We cannot but think II better 20
surrender the individual safeguard Of repeated
snd dilatory criminal appeals than to allow
public confidence in the promptitude and in
errancy Of criminal justice 70 be fatally shaken.
We might 90 further even than
tins. Why, indeed, stop at a reform
of the administration of criminal JUS
tice alone? Why not overhaul the
whole system of administering JUS
tice9 1t seems to stand sadly in need
OF It.
Justice should be administered
promptly, impartially, and at as little
cost to itigants as possible, without
that cost being so low as to encourage
litigation.
Is it prompt? In the Supreme
Court Of the United States, though
the conditions are better now than
they were a few years ago, it is an
unusual thing for a ease to be reached
within two years after having been
flied. A delay Of six or seven years
in the New York court of appeals Is
no uncommon occurrence. In some
other State courts 1t is even worse. A
veritable ''cause celebre" of certain