The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-09-08


lican and Democratic conventions Mr.
Taft. In his notification speech, objects to
the language He charges that the anti
Injunction plank was loosely drawn and
framed for the especial purpose Of rem
dering IL susceptible to one Interpretation
by one set of men and Numerically
opposite Interpretation by another As
Mr.. Taft has had long experience on the
bench, and is therefore skilled in the in
depreciation of language / ask him
to give us, If he can, two opposite inter-
pretatons of the language. That plank
demands that all parties to all judicial
proceedings shall be treated with rigid inn
partially Surely he cannot find two in
terpretations to the phrase rigid impair
TALLY
Speaking of Industrial disputes, the
platform declares that 'injunctions shall
not be issued In any cases in which in
functions would not issue if no indus
trial dispute were involved How can
that language be misconstrued or misn-
terpreted? II words mean anything, that
plank means that an industrial dispute
shall not, in itself. be regarded as a.suf-
ficient cause for an injunction. If an in
junction issues in an industrial dispute, It
must be based upon acts which would JUS
tify an injunction If there were no indus
ambiguous about 1t; there is nothing that
can be misconstrued or misinterpreted.
even by one desiring TO find a double
meaning Why do the Republican lead
words? Simply because they cannot meet
the proposition presented Even Mr.. Taft
attempts to avoid the issue by saying that
no one has ever maintained that the
fact that a dispute was Industrial gave
any basis for the issuing of an injunction
in reference thereto If it 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 secur-
ing the passage OF a law in harmony with
this plank.
Position of Mr.. Taft.
Upon the jury question Mr.. Taft clear
ly takes issue with us. He is thoroughly
aroused by what he regards as a menace
to the courts. Here is his lament:
Never in the history of the country
has there been such an insidious attack
upon the judicial system as the proposal
to interject a jury trial between all or
ders of the court made after full hearing
and the enforcement of such orders.
This would come under the head of
important if True But the fact is, our
platform specifically declares that we IA
vor measure which passed the United
States senate in 1896, and which a Repub-
hcan congress has ever since refused to
enact, etc, providing for trial by jury
in cases of INDIRECT contempt. Are
not the proceedings of the United States
senate part of the history of the coun-
try! This measure passed the United
DldtcS Stlldlt more IMAM tWelVe years ago,
and the vote upon IL was SO nearly unani-
nous that no roll was demanded. The
bill was not Smuggled through without dis
cussion- 1t was amended in open sem
ate and the members of the senate had
ample opportunity to understand it. 1t
would have passed congress and become
law long ago but for the fact that few
large corporate employers of labor have
kept lobby in Washington ever since,
and have been able to coerce congress
into ignoring the laboring mans plea.
Not an Unbiased Judge.
''Mr. Taft is not an unbiased judge
where the jury system is under considera-
ton. He is not only known as the IA
Their of government by injunction, but he
Is prejudiced against the jury system.
Every man is unconsciOusly influenced
by his environment, ana Mr.. Tafts long
service upon the bench has led him TO un-
derrate the Importance of the jury sys-
TEN. In his address to the students of
Yale, entitled 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 federal court
at the expense of the western courts
even though he admits that the jury
system popularizes the court and gives the
people to understand that they have, not
only an interest, but also part, In the
administration of Justice He has fall
en- into the error of assuming that any i'm
provement in the method of court pro-
cedure is an attack upon the authority
or the court This is an ancient method
of opposing reforms LORD Macaulay had
to encounter a similar objection when ne
favored the reform of the rotten borough
system of England. Those who We're OPP
posed to the reform construed ii as an
attack upon the throne and as a menace
to the stability of government but the
reform was secured and the government
of England was improved rather than i'm
paired. So the reform attempted by the
senate twelve
three Democratic national conventions is
In the interest of justice and has for its
object the strengthening of the court in
public estimation.
No Reflection Upon the Court.
1T is not a reflection upon the Judge of
a criminal court to say that he shall not
decide upon the guilt of the accused Our
criminal courts are the better. not the
worse. for the substitution of trial by
jury. No common law Judge feels that
1t is a reflection upon him when q party
TO suit asks for a trial before jury.
1t Is the special function of jury to
decide upon the credibility of witnesses.
and the manner of a witness upon the
stand is often as important as his words
in determining the weight to be attached
hampered by precedent. He wants this
decision to harmonize with former deci-
sions rendered by him, although the facts
are never the same in two cases. The
jury is better able to decide each case
upon its merits.
1T must be remembered, too. that In
cases of indirect contempt, the charge is
a criminal one and that the punishment
Is by fine or Imprisonment. All the rea-
sons that apply to criminal cases apply
to these cases of indirect contempt. and
the abuses to be removed by the proposed
law are those that have grown up be-
cause of the increased tendency of the
great corporations to use the writ of in
junction TO avoid the jury trial.
The Democratic platform proposes no
with the right of the Judge
to decide the cases of direct 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