The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-09-07

and a Numerically opposite interpreted
ton by another" AS Mr.. Taft has had
long experience on the bench, and is
therefore skilled in the Interpretation
of language. I ask him to give us, if he
can, two opposite interpretations of the
language. That plank demands that
"all parties to all judicial proceedings
shall be treated with rigid impartial
ity." Surely he cannot find two inter-
pretations to the phrase rigid impair
TALLY"
Industrial DISPUTES.
Speaking of industrial disputes the
platform declares that "injunctions
shall not be issued in any cases in
which injunctions would not issue If no
industrial dispute were involved" How
can that language be misconStrued or
misinterpreted? If words mean any
! thing, that plank means that an indus
trial dispute shall not, in itself, be re-
garded as a sufficient cause for an IN
| junction. If an injunction issues in an
| industrial dispute, it must be based
upon acts which would justify an in
| junction if there We're no industrial dis
pute involved. There is nothing am
biguous about it; there is nothing that
can be miscOnStrued or misinterpreted.
/ even by one desiring to find a double
meaning. Why do the Republican lead
| ers attempt to read ambiguity into
| those words? Simply because they can
not meet the proposition presented.
| Even Mr.. Taft attempts to avoid the is
/ sue by saying that mo one has ever
| maintained that the fact that a dis
pute was industrial gave any basis for
| the issuing of an injunction in refer
| ence thereto" If it is true that no one
| now maintains that. then why find
| fault with our platform that sub
| ject? If nobody opposes our position,
we ought to have no difficulty in Sc
! curing the passage of a law in her
mony with this plank.
Upon the jury question Mr.. Taft
clearly 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 insidious at
! tack upon the judicial system as the
| proposal to interject a jury trial be-
| tween all orders of the court made af-
| ter 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 favor a measure (which passed the
| United States senate in 1895, and
which a Republican 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 a part of the
1
passed the United States senate more
than twelve years ago, and the vote
! upon it was so nearly unanimous that
no roll call was demanded. The bill
was not struggled 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 and
become a law long ago but for the fact
that a few large corporate employers
of labor have kept lobby in Wash
| tngton ever since, and have been able
to coerce congress into ignoring the
laboring mems plea.
Taft Not Unbiased
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-
| ton. but he is prejudfced against the
jury system. Every man is uncon-
sciously Influenced by his environment
and Mr.. Taft's long service upon the
bench has led him to underrate the
| importance of the jury system. In his
| address to the students of Yale entit-
led, "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 at the expense of the west
| ern courts, even though he admits that
| the jury system popularizes the court
ana gives the people to understand
| that they have, not only interest. but
| also a part, in the administration Of
! Justice He has fallen into the error
| OF assuming that any improvement
| in the method of court procedure is
| an attack upon the authority of the
/ court This is an ancient method Of
! opposing reforms. Lord Macaulay had
| to encounter a similar objection when
/ he favored the reform of the rotten
| borough system of England Those
| who were opposed to the reform con-
| strued it as an attack upon the throne
/ and as a menace to the stability Of
H government. but the reform was Sc
cured and the government of England
was improved rather than impaired.
/ So the reform attempted by the SEN
ate twelve years ago, and endorsed by
three Democratic national conventions
is in the interest of justice and has for
its object the strengthening of the
court in public estimation.
1t is not a reflection upon the Judge
of q 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 substi-
tuition of trial by jury. No common
law judge feels that it is a reflection
upon him when party to a suit asks
for a trial before a 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
u apt to be- hampered by precedent, He