The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-09-08


 age of law in harmony with this Upon the jury question MT; Taft clear " takes issue with us. He is thor menace to the courts. Here Is his la
 Never in the history of the country nas there been such an insidious attack upon the judicai system as the pro posai to interject as jury triaI between all orders of the court made after full hearing and the enforcement of such
 This would come under the head of .qmportanl. if true But the fact is, our platform specifically declares that we favor a measure which passed tbe United States Senate in 1896, and which q Republican t!ongress has ever since refused t. enact" etc. providing for trial by jury in cases of indirect con tempt. Are not the proceedings of the ssory statas of . ssnas Ps of h passed the United States Senate more than twelve years ago. and the vote upon t was so nearly unanimous that was not smuggied through without dis | cussion. It was amended in open Sem ate and the members of the Senate had ample opportunity to understand it. come law but for the fact that a few large corporate employers of labor have kept a lobby in Washington ever since. and have been able to coerce mems plea. M
 sTather of Industries.n
 Mir. Taft is not an unbiased judge where the tury,system is under consid- eration. He is not only known as the father of government by injunction, but he is prejudiced against the jury system. Every man is unconsciously influenced by his environment, and MT. has led him to underrate the import ance of the jury system. In his ad- dress to the students of Yale entitled "A Judge on the Bench" he shows a 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 a part, in the administration of justice" He has fallen into the error of assum- ing that any improvement in the meth cd 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 sinl- liar objection when he favored the re- form of the gotten borough system of England. Those who were opposed to the reform construed 1t as an attack upon the throne and as a menace to the stability of government, but the re- form was secured and the government of England was improved rather than impaired. So the reform attempted hy the Senate twelve years ago, and en- dorsed by three Democratic national conventions, is fin the interest of jus tiee and has for it's object the strength ening of the court in public estima- ton.
 It is not reflection upon the judge of a criminal court to say that he shall not decide upon the guilt of the ac- cused. Our criminal courts are the bet ter, not the worse. for the substitn- judge feels that it Is a reflection up on him when party to a suit asks Tor trial by jury. It Is the special function of jury to decide upon the credibility of witnesses, and the man. ner of a witness upon the stand Is of ten as important as his words in deter mining the weight to be attached to his testimony. A judge is apt to be decision to harmonize with former de- cisons rendered by him, although the facts are tnever the same in two cases. The jury is better able to de- eide each case upon its merits.
 It must be remembered, too, that in eases of indirect contempt, the charge Is. a criminal one and that the punish ment Is by fine or Imprisonment. All the reasons 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 because of the increas- to use the writ of injunction to avoid the jury trial
 The Democratic platform proposes no interference with the right of the judge to decide the cases of direct con-, tempt-contempt committed in the presence of the court; neither is 1t pro- posed to interfere with the right of the judge to determine the Punishment sought @ is the tsfS Substitution of trial rial by " jury for trial by judge when the vio- lation of the courts decree must be established hy evidence.
 Not only Is the prosecution for con- tempt criminal prosecution, but there Is even more reason for a jury than in the ordinary crim mina1 case. In the criminal court the judge acts in a ju- dical capacity. He is not responsible in his court, and therefore he has no personal grievance against the defend- ant, and not being the prosecutor in the case, he does not feel a personal in a contempt proceeding the judge is the lawmaker and public prosecutor as well as the judge. It is the judges order which the accused is charged with violating, and it Is the judge who appears to prosecute the case. upon which he is to render a decision. In our Federal and State constitutions we have carefully separated the three de-
 
 pertinent is Jealous of any encroach- ment upon it's sphere of activity. The judge resents any attempt of the leg islator or of the executive to usurp. the functions of the court; the executive resents any attempt of the court or of the lawmaker to enter his domain, and the lawmaker is equally insistent upon the preservation of his independence. If there Is any time or place where a jury Is needed, it is in a case of indi- rect contempt. It is not strange that abuses have crept in, for man would have to be more than human to unite in himself the deliberation of the leg islator, the zeal of the public prose- cutor and the impartiality of the judge.
 Right of Jury Trial.
 While the laboring men have been the first to complain of this denial of the right of trial By Jury in cases of considered a labor question. The jury system is so essential to the adminis- tration of justice that the subject ought to appeal to all who make study of the sciende of government. If citizens would only be on their guard against the beginnings of evils, 1t would be very easy to apply necessary remedies, but in the struggle for existence the voters are often indifferent to the ap- plication of an erroneous principle un- til repeated applications establish a custom, and in time a custom crystal lizes into law. It behooves us as low CTS of our country, and as the friends of liberty, to insist upon the independ- ence of the different departments of our government and upon the maintenance of the rights which have been shown by experience to be essential to free- dom and elf.government. The jury system must Be preserved, and we cam not hope to preserve 1t If, for any reason or under any pretext, we permit any citizen to be denied the protection which 1t furnishes.