New-York tribune., 1908-10-29

them and avoiding the misconstruct1on and false
charges in regard to them nade py pdTIlsdns IN
this campaign
Mr Gompers's announcement as 10 his agree
ment with the Democratic party and Mr. Bryan
is that they propose TO interject jury trial
between an order Of the court and its enforce
ment for all contenpts committed outside the
presence Of the court, and the argument is that
~ convicted thief, If charged q second time,
must be tried by jury, why should not man
who violates the order Of the court? The reason
is that It is of the highest Importance to pre-
serve the power of the court to enforce its
own orders
INDIRECT AND DIRECT CONTEMPTS.
Now. why do they make a distinction between
indirect contenpts and direct contempts-that
is why do they distinguish between scontempts
committed in the presence of the court and those
committed outside? The reason for the excep-
ton that they will give at once will be IT is in
order to preserve the authority OF the courts
Ie tbare any more reason why a who
raises row in court and IS sentenced TO jail Tor
thirty days should not have a trial, than a man
who violates an order of the court? In each case
the reason why he should not have jury trial
is the same It is to preserve the authority OF
the court and the very fact that they leaVe an
opportunity to send a man TO jail without a jury
trial for contempts committed In the presence OF
the courts gives the whole case away II SHOWS
that there is a reason why we should not nave
8 iI1rv trial In some cases where those cases
are necessary to sustain the authority of the
court.
Now let me explain to you the operation OF
the proposed change. An indirect contempt Is
the violation of a subpoena by witness one
of Vour federal Judges here issues subpoena 10
John Smith, and John Smith for some reason or
other does not want to come to court 10 testiIy-
So he does not come that day, and the next DAY
the marshal is sent for him and he IS brought
into court The Judge says: The marshal says
he served the subpoena on you persona9ny- 9l Wmy @
familiar with the recently enacted Democratic
statute and decline to answer You VIII nave
10 summon twelve men In a box here TO deter-
mine first whether your marshal tells the truth
decline 70 answer. Perhaps your narshaI Li tel!s
the truth perhaps he does not, but these twelve
men have got to settle 1t before you can act on
it."
! Suppose you issue summons TO a juror The
Juror wants to go fishing, and he reEes on rhls
Democratic statute. He Is finally brought IN IN
day or two and he is asked If he did not get
the Juror summons. He says: Excuse me,
fI5eee am familiar with the statutes. You
lii ho,,a ~ e,1noTnon another iurv to determine
whether I was properly summoned as jury
man" That shows the utter absurdlty OF the
law II shows how far men will go In weaken
ing fatally the power Of the courts in order 10
achieve some partisan purpose
WOULD DEFEAT JUSTICE.
But that is not all The worst of 1t is in the
adjudcated orders Of the court that nave peen
fully considered. Take this case. An inventor
Of note like most inventors with very little
money after working hard gets a patent a
wealthy corporation tries to buy 1t from MIN,
and they cannot agree on terms. 80 @ they con, con.
he hopes he can get them out Of it. and they go
ahead and infringe the patent The inventor
scrapes together $4,000 or $4,000. and ne hghts
case two three years. -
FINALLY he gets a decree affirming the validity
of his patent and its value an invention. and
the fact that the defendant tnfrtnges It. Ihen
the defendant corporation takes the case up,
and the inventor is kept dancing IN the coo court
house another year. and 1t costs him $4,000 or
81 900 more. Then there is a decree a11rr1llns
the decree Of the court below, and then py some
hook or crook they move for a cert1orarf IN the
supreme Court of the United States. and they
carry 1t up there and IT costs him $4,000 more;
but finally he gets decree in the supreme court
NoSa and O
down TO the court below TO enforce that 1u0g-
ment. - ,,
studied this Democratic statute. and they ad-
wise their client that there is still way ouC ana
that they may go ahead with their infringe
ment So they go ahead with their lnfrinse5
n1ent, and then this inventor. who has labored
and borrowed all the money he could, ana
starved himself during these four or f1Ve years
conoes into court and asks the judge 70 punish
them for attempting TO violate an order WHICH
has passed through three courts and been con-
frp1ed- r,.. 70 ,o- this
IS a fragrant case, but the Democratic statute
with which you are familiar, requires me now on
your charge TO secure jury 70 aeteIlIline i
,rbether this company is actually infringing
vour uatent which has been declared 10 be Va!lo
and which three courts have declared that tne 10
cononsny is infringing but you still have got 70
subject that nice. delicate question TO the un-
certaintiee of twelve laymen that are TO SIT IN
the box and pass on the case
DESTROYS AUTHORITY OF COURTS.
subyn,t TO any honest minded men. whether
.o nnt in a provision Of that sort, thus holding
IN 10 ridtcuIe and weakening the solemn orders
nv three courts reached with all the deiiberation
nossible is not laying the axe at the foot Of the
tres OF Justice and destroying the authority OF
the courts ! do not what its effect Is on
nv noIitjcaI future. AS long as have strength
20 do so / shall protest against any weakening
Of the power OF the courts. and especially in this
dey of human progress. when we nave TO de-
nend more on the courts and their power and
the purity Of justice and its strength than ever
before in the history of the world
There is not an issue In this campaign COM
nsrabla In Importance TO the attack on tAA