The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1908-09-12
treated with rigid i,npartiality." Sure
iy he cannot hnd two interpretations
TO the phrase rigid impartiality."

treated with rigid iinpartiality." Sure
iy he cannot fnd two interpretations
to the phrase rigid impartiality." i
Speaking Of industrial disputes, the
platform declares that "iniunctieas
shall not be issued in any cases in
which injunctions would not issue il
10 industrial dispute were involved.
How can that language be miscon-
ssrued or 4lnisinterpreted?
Basis Of the Injunction.
If words mean anything, that plank
means that an industrial dispute shall
not, in itself. be. regarded as a sufi-
cient cause for All INJUNCTION. If an
injunction issues in an industrial dis
pute, it must be based upon acts which
would justify an injunction it. there
were no industrial dispute involved.
There is nothing ambiguous about it,;
there is nothing. that can be miscon-
strued or misinterpreted, even by one
desiring to find a double meaning.
Why do the Republican leaders at
tempt to read ambiguity into those
words?
Simply because they cannot meet the
proposition presented.
If it is true that no one now MAIN
tains that, then why find fault with
our platform on that subject? II no.
| ho11r
to have no dihhculty in securing the
Passage of law in harmony with this
plank >,
Upon the jury question Mr.. Taft
clearly takes issue with us. He is
thoroughly aroused by what he re-
CARDS as menace to the courts Here
lis his lament:
Never in the history of the country
has there been such an insiduous at
tack upon the judicial system as the
proposal to interject a jury trial be-
tween all orders of the court made
after full hearing and the enforcement
of such orders!' -.
Jury in Indirect Contempt.
This would come under the head OF
Important, il Trpe." But the fact is,
our platform spee efcally declares that
we favor a. 4s.easus, s,stswhich~passed the
United States Senate ). in 1896, and
which a Republican Congress has ever
since refused to enact ETC.; providing
for trial by jury in cases of indirect
contempt.
The bill was not smuggled 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 law long ago
but for the fact that few large cor
rorate employers of labor have kept
a lobby in Washington ever since, and
rave been able to coerce Congress into
ignoring the laboring mems plea.
Mr.. Taft is not an unbiased judge
when the jury system is under con-
the father of government by injunc-
ton, but he is prejudiced against the
j:ry system. Every man is unconsci-
cusly influenced by his environment
and Mr.. Taft's long service upon the
bench has led him to underrate the
Importance of the jury system.
He has fallen into the error Of as
suming that any improvement in the
method of court procedure is an at
tack upon the authority of the court
1t is not reflection upon the judge
Of 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.
Jury Not Reflection.
No common law judge feels that 1t is
C reflection upon him when a party to
a suit asks for trial before a Jury
1t Is the special function Of jury tc
decide upon the credibility of wit
nesses and the manner Of a witness
upon the stand is often as important
as his words in determining the weight
to be attached to his testimony.
Judge is apt to be hampered by prece.
dent. The jury is better able to de-
eide each case upon its merits
1t must be remembered, too. that In
cases of indirect contempt the charge
is criminal one and that the punish
ment is by fine or Imprisonment. AL
: the reasons that apply to crimina
cases apply to these cases Of indirect
contempt. and the abuses to be re.
moved by the proposed law are thos.
that have grown up because Of the in.
creased tendency o. the great corpora.
t;ons to use the writ Of injunction t
avoid the jury trial.
4 The Democrats platform propose.