The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1908-09-08

sasrocsaiy aseascl cs what b. re-
raris as menace O. th, co.us. Bcr5
e. h.s lament.
Ncscr la ale history of the cour-
try hes there been slcl en ins,Liors
attack unon tine judicial sy ,em as the
proposal TO intcrject a Jury trial b.
tween an orders Of the court made
ter fuh hearing ana thc cnlorccuort
Of such orders
ihisWcrli come under the head CT
'imporlar- ID tree. Rut The fact
our platform specifically declares taat
we favor measure which passed tte
United States senate in 1895 and which
q Republican congress- has ever sine,
refused 60 enact etc. providing ior
trial by jury in cases of Indirect Goa
tempt Are not the proceedings OF the
United States senate part OF the-his.
tory of the countryg This measure
passed the United States senate NOR
than twelve years ago. ana the vote
upon it was SO nearly unanimous that
no roll can was demanded The BIN
was not smuggied through without dis
cussion. DO was amended in open sc.-
ate. and the members OF the senate
had ample opportunity % understand
H. 10 would have passed CONGRESS- ana
become a law long ago but for the soct
that a few large corporate employers
OF labor have kept a lobby In Washing
ton ever since and have been able q
coerce congress into ignoring the Ia
boring mems plea
Jury Trial No Reelection On Court.
1T is not a reflection upon tie iui-o
of criminal court 70 say thar h. shall
not decide upon the guilt OF the ac.
cuscd. Our criminal courts are the
better. not the worse. tor the subst ti-
ton Of trial hy jury. No common law
lulge feels that &c is q reflection upon
him when pa.ty TO a suit asks for \
trial before a jury. It is the special
junction OF jury to decide upon the
credibuity OF witnesses. and the man
ner OF a witness upon the stand is'cf.
ten as Important as his words In deter
mining the weight 90 De attached O.
his testimony A judge is apt to fe
h1uperei by precedent He wants this
decision O. harmcn.za with former do
cisions rendered hy him although tle
facts are never che same On two eases.
The jury is better able T. decid, each
case rpon las merits.
The Democratic platform propas
no Interference with tire right OF thu
ludro 20 decide the cases OF direct con.
tempt-cont upt committed in Tho
presence OF the cou-t-ncither is i-
proposed lo interfere with the ri-ri of
t1e judge to determine the punishment
for indirect contempt All that is
soucht is the substitution of trial pr
jury for trial by Judge when the vi7.-
zion 20 ire courts decree must Do o-.
-1tlIshed bv evidence
'Not only IS Che prosecution f1- cone
tempt criminal prosecution. but|
There il even mcvo reason fcr Jr-r
th1r iu tle ordinary criminal case. Il
t1e criminal cour, Che judge n~ls in ,
judicial capacity only He Is no. r.
spons.1le for the law which IS bcir.
enforced in his court. and therefor. be
has no personal grievance aeainst tie
defendant and not being the nrcsoci.-
tor in Che case. De does nos feel per.
scnci interest in The result az the triaf
nut in contempt proceeding tre
judge Is The lavmaker ana public pro
ecutor as wen as Che judge o. is th
judges ord which the accused is
cho-ged with violating and % S. th
judge wao appears 90 prosccu-o o.
case. upon which ho Is 90 render n ds-
cision. In our federal and state coa.
stitu'io-s We have carefully separate
tae three dcrartufnts OF government.
and each department rs jealous az any
ncroachment upon its sphere of aC
rv.fy. The Judge rcsonts any attcm-t
% the LEGISLATOR or OF the executive O.
usur7 the functions OF tho court. th
executive resents any attcmpt 90 the
SQUIRT or 90 the iawmakcr O. EMO 3D.
domain and the lawmaker is crl1ilv |
insietcnt upon the preservation o.. his l
independence. 10 there is any tim or
place where jury is needed 70 b. ia D |
rase OF indirect contempt It g. nrt
strange that abuses have crcpf .n for /
a man would have % be uore than
auran % unite ia himself the del0cr-
alton 90 the legislator the zeal of tha |
public prosecutor and the impariality |
Of the judge"