The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-05-23
TEARS rN coURr.

One Judge Brumback. of Missouri. has laid out for himself difficult proposition. in our judgment He has discharged two juriss in one case be- cause the plaintiff. who is woman. burst into tears while on the stand. The Judge declares that woman's tears will bias jury and so he will have none of them shed in his court.
 Now we are somewhat curious to know how this judge is going to lay an embargo on one of woman's most sacred privileges. Some women shed tears very easily and there are times when they t&nnot avoid it. Twice in the case alluded to the fair plaintiff shed tears and in each Instance the judge stopped the case and discharged the jury. Is not his action a virtual and actual denial of justice? Suppose she continues to weep and he contin- ues to discharge juries. what chance Is there for her to ever get trial? Now. The Kansas City Journal puts this form of argument ia~ defense Of the judge:
 There is foundation of strong com mon sense in this attitude of Judge Brumback which other juries must principle or not. Justice is often de- feated by q flood of opportune tears from the eyes of some fair plaintlft, for no jury on earth can be quite in- mune from the influence of dewy eyes of pretty woman in distress Prob ably no woman ever existed who was not a past-master of the delicate art of sobDins It Is her best st, wssnsa ss1ea to move the hearts of men since Eve. shed some enatural tears" while leading the way out of the Garden of Eden.
 That the opportune sob IS or pow. can testify. but the melting tear as q trial asset in court has reached us highest development. plaintiff VIII sit unmoyed while the jury IS out duat ist Ing strictly legal argument. but let that jury return to the court room and the fair plaintiffs expression VIII suddenly change and she VIII glahce from eye to eye Of the men m tne poA and the effect upon their faces will be that of a brisk wind passing over 2 field of ripening grain. On the stand she win sob--just enough. This IS part of the art. She knows at just what point she Is prettiest and exactly when her nose will become red and her eyes look seggy. There Is no real anguish back of 1t. It Is just an artfui. design Ing. H1Ns CT4IEFs pTSNly auver that tangles mems Judgment ana makes them no more fit to render un- biased opinions than though they were fuil of strong wine. What chance has railroad company against woman claiming extortionate damages II she can blush, sob, glance prettily down her nose and hypnotize lot of whis- kered men
 All that is very ingenious. but 1t Isn't sound reasoning, and doesn't touch the main point. We admit that wo- mans tears are not always the genuine article. She may. and doubtless does on occasion, pump them out for spec ial purpose, and for effect, but how Is A judge to know whether they are genuine or called up for the occasion? And when a woman Is either plaintiff or defendant fin a case. and much for her depends on the verdict of the jury, and the tears come without her pow e. to prevent them. is 1t fair or just to refuse her the privilege and the con- stitutionaI right of trial by jury? We are much inclined to the opinion that the judge has taken on hard job.