Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1911-10-11
Court and Criminal.


In a rather exhaustive editorial on
the federal judicial system the St.
Louis Republic accuses the federal
judges of New York Of being re-
specters Of persons and instances the
remark Of one of them in explanation
Of the discrepancy in his statement
in the passage Of sentence in two
cases Of violation of the customs act
when he said: There is a clear dis
tinction between foolish men and wo-
men who hide valuables on their per-
sons on coming here and those who
Systematically smuggle to gain
profit in business"
1T happens says the Republic.
that the foolish men and women re
ferred to are mostly rich and that
their frauds upon the customs run
into large sums, whereas the 'syste-
matte smuggler' to whom he had i'm
mediate reference was a small mer-
chant whose offense involved only a
few hundreds OF dollars. The fool
ish men and women were fined, but
the systematic smuggler went to prison.
IF there is any more systematic
smuggling in this country than that
which well-to-do and intelligent peo-
pie carry on 1t would be interesting
OF know what It is. In a case Of this
kind just settled in New York by the
payment of money in open court
certain western millionaires plead
guilty to smuggling costly jewels
which they lavished upon an adventur-
ess. They were foolish, no doubt,
but they were also deliberate law
breakers, as their confession proves
and being married men, they were
dishonoring themselves and their
families doubly by a miserable in
trigue with a woman.
THE New York federal courts
treat offenders under the antitrust
law in the same fashion. One of them
not long ago gave an Interpretation
to the law which filled every trust
with delight, for it was so drastic
that enforcement on such terms be-
came an impossibility. Recently in
a case where evidence of guilt was
so conclusive that room full of con-
spirators plead guilty only small fines
were imposed.
Judges enforcing the criminal
law must have wide discretion and
if justice be done, they must exer-
else 1t without fear or favor, but it
ought not to operate In favor Of a
class or against a class. The law
makes no such distinctions. Why
should judges do so?
Congress has several inquiries in
progress, aimed for the most part at
the great executive departments. An
needed more urgently
than any Of these. IN the opinion of
many, is one that would take into
view the administration of justice in
the federal courts. The house Of
is authorized to hold
this inquest. So many years have
passed since anything of the kind
was attempted that the courts them
selves appear TO have forgotten that
it is a possibility.
IF the judiciary committee of the
house were TO review some Of the
practices of federal judges in New
York, for example. we believe that for
a season, at least. there would not
be so many distinctions in the law in
that neighborhood."
There ought to be no doubt in the
minds of the people that the laws
were made for all the people and not
merely a part of them and that while
there may be degrees in criminal in
tent, no guilty person should be all
lowed to escape. Distinctions in
law" are perilous things for judges
to handle. There should be no dis
tinction against the different classes
except as designated by law.