Mexico weekly ledger., 1905-10-12
arRUsr IssuE.o
CONCLUDED FROM PAGE L

fine on a corporation would do toward
preventing a violation Of the law
against agreements 70 fix prices Of
commodities Take the beef packing
cases which have recently been In our
Supreme Court, where fines were I'M
posed upon several corporations 1t
was found they had an agreement
among themselves, that they would
pay 50 much, and only SO much, for
beef upon the hoof. IL was found that
they had violated the laws against
pools and trusug. After o long and
laborious hearing, and the clear estab-
lishment OF their guilt she Supreme
Court OF this State fined them $500
each. Its . moderate statement 10
say that each OF these concerns made
q profit Of 300, 900 by the unlawful
combination. OF which they were con-
victed; and yet, they were fined 5000
for doing It, and hence each was $685.
900 ahead Of the game. What punish
ment is that? Neither would " DO
any good 20 line any Of the persons
who conducted the crime, for the cor
poration would pay the fine, A fine in
such 4 place is child's play; It does NOT
meet the requirements Of the case. II
We want these laws obeyed, we must
provide that the Individual who takes
part In their violation shall be i'm
prisoned, and whenever such alaw Is
adopted, and 1t Is known that public
opinion demands It's enforcement, we
Iwill not have any trouble-we will
not be called upon to enforce II. These
trust managers will be good, II they
see the prison doors open and a people
willing and ready to drive them In IL
they be bad.
l would further suggest, that the
trial Of cases Of this kind should be
referred to a special tribunal created
for that purpose, 50 that there would
be. none OF the ordinary delays and
presentations that would n~ecessari-
~ take place in the tfial Of criminal
cases, II they were presented to the
ordinary criminal court, where the
dockets are full, to the EN-. that the
cases may be promptly tried and the
law speedily enforced And l would
further suggest that the doctrine Of
reasonable doubt, as all lawyers know,
grew up when the defendant was not
allowed the benefit Of counsel; when
be was not allowed TO subpoena and
compel the attendance Of witnesses;
when he was practically helpless In
the presence Of bis accusers This
doctrine Of a reasonable doubt grew
up by reason Of these conditions, but
the reason no longer exists.
Another thing ! would do; l would
change the provisions OF the statutes
which give the defendant 10 a cTimi-
nal case the right Of more peremptory
challenges than the state. There
never was any sound reason why this
should have been allowed. Take a
capital case, for instance You have
forty men drawn, from whom you
choose a jury OF twelve. Under the
present law, the state can have eight
peremptory challenges, and 1t must
take its challenges first. The state
scratches of eight men, leaves thirty
two men from which the defendant Is
to select his jury There may be, a
good share OF them, good men; but you
let the defendant, as be has q right TO,
scratch of twenty Of the best men OF
the thirty-two, and what will the bal
ance look like? They look like a pile
OF cullss after a liberal tie inspector
has finished bis work.
II the state and the nasion intends
to control their public service corpo-.
rations to the use Of the public, 1t is
necessary that they sharpen the spur
and tighten the curb.
Gentlemen, this movement to re-
quire the public service corporations,
which are in one sense but hands Of
the State to minister to the conven-
ience OF the public, to treat all alike,
is a movement back toward one OF the
central ideas on which our form OF
government was based. viz: the idea
that 1t is the duty Of government to
furnish, % for as law can furnish 1t,
an equal opportunity to every citizen
to work out for himself the best that
there is In him to work out.
We do not object to the accumula-
tion or possession Of wealth by any
citizen, but we do object to the meth
DDS BY which some come into possess
ion Of wealth. We would not tear
down our neighbours house because we
have no house Of our own, but we do
demand that our government furnish
US all with an equal opportunity, I'M
der the law, to build houses Of our
own.
We are fortunate at this time in
having at the head Of the executive
departments of our State and Nation
men who have expressed themselves,
and, what is better, shown themselves
to be in favor Of enforcing the laws,
and Of giving toevery citizen a square
deal.n All we ask is that the State
and government require all to obey
the law, and that the laws shall give
us all an equal chance. No q is en-
titled to more than that, and none
should accept anything less.