The Alaska citizen., 1913-12-15
Is IT FAIR?
Hary

some time ago a man fled from AL aska He was charged with crfm ,. Before We judge, let Us listen to his side of the story. To a friend. hr said:
 T am innocent, but that is not the point, have s2.oOo which have care fully saved by cutting cord wood on tn" Yukon. The government requires m" to get my own witnesses to court and to pay their expenses When leave Fairbanks l shall be broke. I nave worked hard for this money"
 This Is the situation. in condensed form which confronts a man who may he charge with crime in Alaska He must virtually prove his innocence. if he is able If not there Is an al ternative. By taking "pauper's oath he may have the service of the govern ment in securing witnesses. provide I. the witnesses be found in the district or within one hundred miles of where the court may be sitting. Section SIS of the Revised Statutes of the United States says so. This law was passed in 1s46
 It is of course an unpopular thint; to take the part of the under dog" However. as William Allen Pinkerton has said that every man Is a potential criminal, and as we can easily oh serve by looking about us that thu. top dog of today may become the
 under dog of tomorrow, il ought to be of general interest to look Into this phase of the laws which govern us. in an effort to be fair with ourselves.
 This law which requires a man. in- noeent or guilty. to bear the expens" of his side of the case, was passed fn the year 1si6. It Is United States law. The separate state governments are not bound by it. They have sta tutes of their own relating to erim- inal procedure. Not one of them, J, far as can be learned, puts this bur den upon the back of man until R, is proven guilty, when it may 0c assessed against him in the way of costs.
 We have not d state government. to be sure. But we have a territorial government, and what is there to hina- own and | code governing procedure in criminal cases--a code which will take into consideration the great dis tances witnesses must travel and the expense attendant thereon. and not a code suitable 10 Rhode Island.
 Just now. many of the legal minds of this district can not tell one wheth- CT we have a territorial court or a United States court. They think per haps il is q territorial court. They cannot say for sure"
 However. one thing is large anl plain We have extended the United states statutes to cover procedure in criminal cases. And those statutes pense of his prosecution if he is able. If he Is not able, the government may help him out And here he is greatly dependent on the fair -mndedness of the prosecution. for this law is broad enough to cover the whims of mortal men who hold offices.
 Under this law. as applied to q vast country like Alaska, man is either a pauper when he comes into court or a pauper when he leaves it. He must necessarily suffer greatly whether he be innocent or guilty This ought to be plain, even to the analytical mind of lawyer. Tn theory, the gov ernment undertakes to prove d mans his little poke against the resources of the whole United States in an ef- fort to establish his innocence
 This is the situation. Is it fair? Is it not up to our next legislature to establish a judiciary of our own with full code covering criminal pro- cedure? If the laws of 1S46 are suf- ficient. why be so local as to dote on a territorial government at all?