The Spokane press. [volume] (Spokane, Wash.) 1902-1939, 1909-01-20
Continued from page u

the court Will appoint cOuHSel lor
an accused If he hsa no counsel;
and in civil cases 1t is only neces-
sary to file an affidavit showing
that the litigant has not money to
pay costs, and the case goes on
without such payment"
Q.-But that is theory. How
about actual practice?"
AYES. IN ACTUAL PRAC-
TlcE.
In my mental notebook l entered
a memorandum as follows: Not
intellectually honest, or not frank y
A similar kind of response came
to my suggestion that the federal
judiciary had begun to suffer seri-
GUS criticism.
81 never knew Of any case being
influenced by improper motives in
thedecision of case," said Judge
Wright. 81 never knew judge to
be moved by anything but deep
sensibility of the sacred obligations
of his office"
(Another memorandum of similar
purport in my mental notebookD
Q.--Do you think the judiciary
ought to be criticized"
A.--The newspapers ougt to adj
here very carefully to the facts in
discussing or criticizing the decis-
ions of a judge. There is no objec-
ton If they adhere to the strict
facts.
Q.-But suppose objection is
made to the system?
A.-That is to advocate anarchy.
II Is better that we should have
courts, and the courts must be up
held. We have to deal with con-
(fitions as they are. You can't
achieve the ideal There are bound
to be imperfections. 1t is better
to obey the law and submit to the
orders of a court, than to become
lawless. 1t is impossible to have a
perfect system. SOMEBODY WILL
ALWAYS SUFFER- INJUSTICE.
soMEBoDIsetiAs GOT TO BE
GROUND IN TIE MILL.
Q.--How abops amendments in
the iaw---ehangss In the law? Do
you, for instaiise. favor an amend
ment or repeal of this Sherman law
which has helped to send these
labor people to jail?
Al can't say that do. But II
is not for me to say. The judiciary
riust not suggest or criticize the
legislative branch.
Q.--Have any men connected
with wealthy corporations been
sent to Jail bS.Ais contempt pro
cess for violations of the Sherman
law?
A.-Not that have heard of. hut
I have not heard of any being
brought before court on sucn
charge.
Q.--Were not the Chicago pack
ers put under blanket injunction
by Attorney General Knox? And
have they not been shown to have
violated that Injunction by the ac-
tons brought by Attorneys General
Moody and Bonaparte under the
criminal statutes?
A.-THAT is NO BUSINESS OF
MINE.
touched on the usurpation of
authority by the federal judiciary
In recent book, entitled THE
Spirit of the American Govern
ment," by J. Allen Smith of Wash
ington State university. 1t is de-
clared that the enlargement of the
injunction powesr by the federal
courts has resulted in what
amounts to the enactment Of new
laws by the judges-laws which
they enforce as well as enact.
THERE HAS BEN NO EN-
LARGEMENT OF THE CON-
TEMPT" said Justice Wright.
"THE LAW ON THIS SUBJECT Is
JUST WHAT IT WAS WHEN 1T
ORIGINATED IN THE COMMON
LAW OF ENGLAND"
will not undertake to quote
what Justice Wright had to say
about the rights of property. He
talked much on this topic. The sa-
credness Of the property right is
what results In making a crime Of
ordinary lawful acts when the fed
eral judiciary has stretched out its
arm to protect property.
"But how about individual lib
erty? How about the constitutional
guarantee OF freedom of speech and
the press?" ] asked.
THE constitution does not guar
antee any right of freedom OF
speech or the press" replied JUS
tice Wright. THAT Is n MISTAKE.
All the constitution does is to put
limitations on congress, saying that
freedom of speech, etc, shall not
be abridge by any act of congress.
That provision is a check on the
national Legislature, not a guaran.
tee to the person. The power re-
mains In the states. II the states
want to check the freedom of
sDeech or the press thew on, do