Los Angeles herald., 1908-09-08

an injunction If there were no indus
trial dispute involved.
Everything Is Plain
There is nothing ambiguous about it,;
there is nothing that can be miscon-
strued or misintefpreted, even by one
desiring to read a double meaning.
Why do the Republican leaders at
tempt to read ambiguity into those
| words? Simply because they cannot
meet the proposition presented. Even
Mr.. Taft attempts to avoid the issue
by saying that mo one has ever main
| tained that the fact that q dispute was
Industrial gave any basis for the issu-
ing of an injunction in reference there
to-" If 1t is true that no one now
maintains that then why find fault
with our platform on that subject?
| If nobody opposes our position we
ought to have no difficulty in securing
the passage of law in harmony with
this plank.
Upon the jury question Mr.. Taft
| clearly takes issue with us. He is
thoroughly aroused by what he re-
CARDS as a menace to the courts. Here
| Is his lament
Never in the history of the coun-
| try has there been such an insidious
attack upon the judicial system as the
| proposal to interject jury trial be-
| tween all orders of the court made
after full hearing and the enforcement
of such orders"
Important, If true" But the fact is,
| our platform specifically declares that
we favor a measure (which passed the
| United States senate in 1896, and which
Republican congress has ever since
| refused to enact" etc, providing Tor
trial by jury in cases of Indirect con. on
| tempt. Are not the proceedings OF the
! United States senate n part of the his
| tory of the country? This measure
passed the United States senate more
| than twelve years ago, and the vote
upon 1t was so nearly unanimous that
no roll call was demanded. The Dill
was not smuggled through without
discussion. 1t was amended in open
senate and the members of the senate
had ample opportunity, to understand
it. 1t would have passed congress ana
become law long ago but for the 1act
that a few large corporate employers
of labor have kept a lobby in Washlng-
ton ever since. and have been able to
coerce congress into ignoring the
laboring mems plea.
Mr. Taft is not an unbiased judge
where the jury system is under con-
sideration. He is not only known as
the father of government by injunc-
tion. but he is prejudiced against the
fury system. Every man is uncon-
sciously influenced by his environment,
and Mr.. Tafts long service upon the
bench has led him to underrate the
Importance of the jury system. In his
address to the students of Yale, en-
titled. "a Judge on the Bench" he
shows decided leaning toward an in
crease of the authority of the judge,
and praises the procedure in the FED
eral court - the expense of the west
ern courts, even though he admits that
"the Jury system populariSes the court
nanf110 tn understand
that they have. not only an interest,
but also a part in the administration
of Justice"
Improvement No Attack
He has fallen into the error of as
suming that any Improvement in the
method of court procedure is an at
tack upon the authority of the court
This is an ancient method Of opposing
reforms. Lord Macaulay had to en-
counter a similar objection when he
favored the reform of the rotten Dor
ough system of England Those VINO
were opposed to the reform construed
II as an attack upon the throne ana as
a. menace to the stability of govern
nent, but the reform was secured ana
the government of England was I'M
proved rather than impaired. 80 tne
reform attempted by the senate tWelVe
years ago, and indorsed by three Dem
ocratic national conventions, Is in the
interest of Justice and has for its OBJ
iect the strengthening Of the court in
public estimation.
n is not a reflection spon the judge
of a criminal court to say that ne shali
not decide upon the guilt OF the ac-
c,,sed Our criminal courts are the
hetter not the worse, for the substitu-
tion Of trial by jury. No common law
Judge feels that 1t is a reflection upon
him when a party TO suit asks 1or
trial before a jury. 1t Is the special
function of jury to decide upon the
credibiIity of witnesses, and the man
ner of a witness upon the stano is OFTEN
as important as his words in determin-
ing the weight to be attached to his
testimony. A Judge is apt to be ham
nered by precedent. He wants this de-
rision to harmonize with former de-
cisions rendered by him, although the
facts are never the same In two cases.
The jury is better able TO decloe edch
case upon it's merits.
IT must be remembered, too, that In
cases of indirect contempt, the charge
is a criminal one and that the PUNISH
Toent is hy fine or imprisonment. All
the reasons that apply to criminal cases
annly to these cases of indirect con-
tempt, and the abuses to be removed
bv the proposed law are those that have
avoid the jury trial.
THE Democratic platform proposes no
interference with the right or the Judge
to decide the cases of direct contempt
contempt committed in the presence
of the court; neither is 1t proposed to
interfere with the right of the judge to
determine the punishment for Indirect
contempt All that is sought is the
substitution of trial by jury for trial
hv iudge when the violation of the
courts decree must be established by
evidence.
Not only is the prosecution for con-
tempt a criminal prosecution, but there
is even more reason for jury than In
the ordinary criminal case. In the
criminal court the judge acts In a
judicial capacity only. He Is not re-
sponsible for the law which is being
enforced in his court, and therefore he
has no personal grievance against the
defendant, and not being the prosecutor
in the case, he does not feel personal
interest in the result of the trial; but
in contempt proceeding the judge Is
the lawmaker and public prosecutor as
well as the Judge. 1t is the judges
order which the accused is charged with
violating, and 1t is the Judge who ap-
pears to prosecute the case, upon which |
he is to render decision.
In our federal and state constitutions
we have carefully separated the three
departments of government, and each