Las Vegas daily optic. [volume] (Las Vegas, N.M.) 1880-1908, 1905-07-03
SECRETARY TAFT AND TrE jury
SYSTEM.

When a cabinet officer Of the init.
ed States government, who 10 also one
OF the leading lawyers OF the country.
expresses IN sweeping terms his o
demnation of one oi the most highly
considered institutions Of our legal
system, the matter becomes one OF
public importance.
In his ailrsss to t.e calculating
class 81 the Yale ~ school, slrgG
Taft, secretary OF war In President
Rooseyelt's cabinet, criticised the ad-
minIstration OF criminal law ia all
the states Of the union, with possibly
one or two exceptions. as a disgrace
TO u civilization. and declared that
this baneful condition Is a result OF
an exageration by the state legis.
latnre Of the power Of the jury aIsi a
corresponding reduction OF the power
Of the judge presiding over criminal
trials. In this respect he ~contrasted
the results obtained Ia England. where
the Judge still maintains d control Of
courtroom procedure TO a far greater
degree than In our own country, with
the results OF criminal trials in the
United States. and asserted his be-
lief that the older system Is far pref.
cradle TO our eve methods.
II is a fact beyond doubt that there
lis much In our administration Of jos
tice that Is a proper subject for legit-
Innate criticism, says the Pueblo
Chieftain. Juries often fail o accom-.
plish the purposes for which they are
selected and shrewd criminal lawyers
sometimes act as c~onspirators TO pre-
vent the enforcement Of the laws and
to defeat the ends Of justice.
But the judges. too, have their part
In the responsibility for these condi
tons, and the blame for them $ not
to be assigned entirely 10 the i-gisla.
tors and the jurymeu and the law
yers.
Ii the American courts were cleared
Of all judges that are corporation al
torneys. OF all Judges that are strongly
Influenced by political partisanship. OF
all judges that are controlled by mo
ltiyes other than a desire TO secure an
impartial enforcement Of the laws and
even handed justice In all cases, civil
or criminal, and all the judges that
fear or neglect to use their full pow
ers for their intended purposes. IL
might be difficult to continue the
transaction OF the necessary volume
of public business with the remaining
judges and the eligible substitutes OBJ
tainable under these new conditions.
II there has been a tendency OF the
American state legislatures TO exal,
the power Of the jury and TO reduce
the power Of the judges 1t may pos
sibly be the result Of a general conyic
ton among the people that the judges
do not make as good use as the,
might OF the power they have. The
most fragrant failures OF justice. SC
far as we have been able to observe
are not those In which the jury brings
In a verdict contrary to the evidence
but those In which the trial Judge OF
the court OF review fails through in.
| difference or c%owardice or partially
to use It's power for the purpose for
which 1t was established. or else be
comes a part OF a conspiracy to defeat
the ends Of justice.
Like other evils of which clear
sighted Americans complain. this
failure Of justice In our criminal
| courts results not so much from a de
feet In system as from a weakness and
degradation OF public sentiment. Such
an evil cannot be cured by a reds.
tribu,ion of powers among Judges,
turies and attorneys, but 1t will be
cured very quickly when an aroused
and intelligent public sentiment de-
mands. from judges and from juries
and from all others concerned In the
administration and enforcement OF
the laws that the public interest shall
be made the controlling motive for
all exercises Of public power.