Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1912-02-07


scheme to defeat the law of the land.
Nowhere, whether in the literature of
the times or the gatherings Of men,
not even in the midst of any assem-
blage of the most ultra-conservative
members of the legal profession, can
be found a sincerely disinterested
npologist for our system of courts and
legal procedure. The delays, the ex-
pense with which ordinary litigation is
attended, have outworn the patience of
lawyers and laity alike. The courts,
which should be haven of refuge for
those troubled in material things, are
as plague spots, TO be stunned and
avoided.
(This is the fifth of the series on
the Failure of Justice in the United
States. The previous articles were:
The Encouragement to Kill" No
vember 25; The Monstrous Break
down of the Criminal Law" December
2; THE Scandal of the Lawless Law"
December %, and THE Extravagant
Cost of the Law" December 80.
1t is a settled and obvious principle
of government that justice delayed is
practically justice denied. There is
no such thing as abstract justice; and
as things go in this world, there is
perhaps no high measure of justice.
AS Lincoln said, judges are human,
and swayed by the same passions, in
terests, and prejudioes as other men.
If the courts decide right in a clear
majority of the cases, that is perhaps
as much as we can ever expect. A con-
siderable measure of injustice is an
inevitable part of any human scheme
Of administration Of the law. This
is especially obvious when we con,
slider how large a part of the judges
who now sit in our courts have been
rput there for reason by Tammany OF
by men Of the type of Platt, Quay, Cox
Lorimer, Sullivan, Ruef, and their
like.
But the administration Of justice
even if imperfect, may at least be
speedy and at least be cheap. Per
haps the gravest charge against oul
courts is that American justice il
neither. Again this charge is no
mine; it is brought by President Tafr
and many of the ablest judges and
. lawyers in the United States.
In the last issue of Golfers l en-
deavored 10 show that one reason fol
this blockade of justice was that VIZ
have about five times as many judge!
as there is any reason for (abou
seven times as many, proportionately
as England), and that the main bust
ness Of this huge crowd Of Office hold
ers in the guise Of judges is LITERAL!
that of defeating justice by increGipi
delay. have already gwen such par
OF the story as figures will tell; nov
; for specific instances.
E Let us begin with Indiana, nelthe
new state nor az old. neither VI
: duly trammeled nor without :rac
tons.
An employee of the Panhandle" G.c
the Pennsylvania railroad name
Peck sued for damages under the EN-
: ployers' liability act and obtained
verdict. Did the company pay? q
course not. 1t is the obvious bushes
of corporations to discourage such al
: ncying proceedings on the part of tn
y rabble they employ, and whose servic
alone makes these corporations DO
/ sible. II is cheaper, infinitely cheape
to keep on hire a gang of high price
lawyers to make the discouragemer
as complete as possible.
So the case was appealed, was r
versed. of course chat is what III
ir appellate courts are for), retired, an
~ still this impudent complainant of
* Peck won. Did the company pay now
Id Certainly not. 1t again appealed. 81
al the record this time was apparent
X bombprcof: and the new appeal We
II. therefore based on the ground that tn
I'd law was unconstitutional Famili;
X. words! Sometimes l am inclined
IL paraphrase DR.. Johnson's bitter Sc
tence and say of our beloved const
ed tuition that it is the last refuge of Il
Id scoundrel. 1t is certainly the safe r
n. fuge of the corporation and the ri,
an litigant.
an JUSTICE IN INDIANA.
III Now one appellate court in Indian
40 having been unable to take care of Il
nd endless appeals, writs of error, exec
III tons. etc. which constitute the ma
on business of the courts, an Intern
be date court of appeals has been CT
ated to relieve the familiar (almo
or universally congestion" The appe
RS in the Peck case came before this
ng termediate body, which, however, h
IS no jurisdiction in questions of "co
stitutionality.' Therefore, the ca