The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-10-04

with lasting injury to the highest well
 fare of the State.
 The Lew Conception of the sacredness
 of the Ballot.
 The low conception of the sacredness
 of the ballot which most voters seem
 to hold--those, in other words, who
 choose the men whose duty 1t Is to
 make and enforce law--has an indirect,
 but none the less real and powerful effect in promoting Sthe non-epforce-
 ment of law. Most men vote-when
 they vote at all--according to their likes or dislilxes, making 1t largely a personal matter and with little regard to the worth or fitness of the candi- date. Men are prone to follow the feelings rather than their reason, be- cause perhaps they have more Of the former than of the latter. The result is, they often send poorly equipped material to the Legislature. and make officers of the law out of inferior men; indeed, not infrequently out or nlen little better than loafers. or pro- fessional office seekers, or demagogues. Is it at all surprising, under such con ditions. that law should fall or en- forcement? It is but just to say. how ever, that the people themselves are to blame here, rather than the makers and officers of the law.
 Substitution of Fines for Imprison-
 The fact that in so many instances the guilty are allowed to escape pun ishment upon the payment or mes
 instead of being required to suner im- prisonment--in other words, the satis- faction of justice being too often placed upon a money basis. as truly as in the case of aNy ordinary busi- ness, IS a far more serious obstacle to the enforcement of law than seems to he commonly realized. To be sure. no sensible person would claim Tor an instant that every offense should pc
 visited with Imprisonment. Tnat would he cruelty Certain trivial onenses may we'll be expiated with a fine. No reasonable man objects to that. New ertheless, the fact remains. and IS familiar to us all. that really grave offenses against personal and property rights, offenses that affect very se- riousiy the interests and welfare or people, offenses against the peace and dignity of the State. are only toe fre- ouentiy regarded lightly. and the of fender escapes with a fine merely. or course, a fine Is a sort of punishment, and In many instances 1t almost breaks a mans heart to separate himself tron his money, so dearly does he love IL. Yet, after all. most men would Lar rather pay a fine. even a heavy one than be in jail a number of montns. Corruption of Justice by the Use of Money.
 Do we not also have to confess. with shame and humiliation, not only khat justice is frequently satisfied with. and what Is infinitely worse. corrupted l by. money? Of course. 1t should mot be affirmed the corruption Of justice | through money is very general. Ger | tainly. we cannot suppose 1t 10 pc universal. Sweeping assertions should never be made, especially when m the very nature of the case-wnich is neculiarly true here-it is utterly im- possible to prove them. However, l am sure all thoughtful persons must admit that corruption of this Kind IS ali too common, and is, indeed, per- haps steadily increasing. Certainly IL l is far more general than It was quarter of a century ago. Turner Las conviction that this is so has become stron0Iv fastened upon the minds of multitudes of just and charitably dis- nosed people, and, moreover people not given to hysteria and senseless denunciation of every and anything which does not happen to meet their l approval.
 | Pernieious Principles of Evidence Which Obtain in Our Courts.
 Look at the courts themselves. They l are regarded as standing supremely for | the laws enforcement. Why, that IS | inc very purpose of their existence. . | Yet how plain it is that the primer | pies of evidence which obtain tnere. ] defeat in many instances, the ends TOT which the courts have been constitutes: | IL is weil-known that the rules Of i evidence are such, appeals can De taken on the fiimsiest preeext' For | instance, if the judge makes an error l in his ruling, although 1t may not | and often does not, affect. the truth ae | All. it is regarded as creating per se'
 d right to 8 new trial in behalf or the
 defeated party. Not so m HpSiAno where law is enforced with Q thorough l heka of which most of us have little conception. For there, even if an | arrorless admission Dc made, or a piece | of evidence be rejected, 1t does not constitute sufficient ground for order | ing a new trial, unless, upon all the evidence, 1t appears to the judges that | the truth has thereby not been reached. | The truth, ah! that is 1t which should
 hs supreme. But in our courts. 1t
 seems to a plain man who tries to look at things right too often the | case that the main purpose Is, not | to get the truth in court, but to Keep | inc truth out of court! Technicalities | are frequently made use of, not Tor
 the enforcement of law, but in order | to, defeat law and right; in word.
 for escaping the consequences of l crime. Further, the old Anglo-Saxon | idea that every man Is presumed to 1 he innocent until he has been proven
 to be guilty Is carried to such absurd lengths in our courts that 1t Is almost
 impossible to prove any sman guilty | unless indeed. he happens to be some noor white without friends money. or 1 social standing, or is . negro
 The Jury System.
 And the jury system, which we have
 been taught from early childhood is