Arizona republican., 1919-02-20
AmendinQ the Laws

The evil which is designed to be cured by the bill holding in supreme courts jurisdiction cases until days. weeks months years after they have been decided, in the possibility may come some time to reopen the case; that it may be begun de is Of piece with much other ill., considered legislation. We do suppose there many supreme courts that would exercise this jurs- dction.
 That a may be convicted on perjured testi- mony is true and that We might have guaranty against any such miscarriage of justice desirable but there evils in this sinful and imperfect world that human ingenuity has found way of correcting, and when try to correct them, mudde things still more.
 The who have been framing laws and amending methods Of procedure for the last three four hundred years have perhaps done as well human beings could do. They have probably done better than the members of any legislature jumped up the spur of the could do
 This bill of course had its origin in the Mooney case. of the witnesses against Mooney having afterward been accused Of perjury though he was later acquitted of that charge The California supreme held though that it could whether not that testimony perjured but the court expressed at it's heiplessness and suggested such remedial legislation is now proposed in the pending bill.
 We may see what might happen if this bill should become law and supreme court should decide let it operate We might have states witness A who had seen B murder c and on his testimony B would be convicted. Later in behalf of attempt would be made to show" the supreme court, how the bill does not state that As testimony was perjured Affidavts might be procured from two more per the effect that the time testified having witnessed the crime he somewhere else thus establishing unique abi for A
 Now, supposing A was the only witness he would have hard time proving that his testimony was 
 He would feel the need of finding somebody who had seen him see the murder. Would any supreme court anywhere compel witness to prove the truth of his testimony? The law does not put such . re- qurement upon him. In As it could not be done.
 The law is by exact science and we believe that while long is earthly institu- ton it never become a perfect The men who love it and have made study of it through the cen tures have been attaining toward perfection though perfection may not quite be reached And we do not believe that outside the law can make progress in perfecting it.
 In the course Of the debate yesterday it sug gested that the key should be thrown away that is, that there should always be retained the
 
 come a time when every is closed. In this coun- try we keep the key longer than it kept anywhere else and use it with great frequency that the law has lost much of it's evil doers. The accused murderer has many chances for his white alley" First there is the trial where every possible protection is thrown around him because of the as- sumption of his innocence. The whole burden is thrown upon the state If convicted there is if the judge suspects the jury has made a mistake the chance of trial. If not there is the appeal and after that the possibility of communication.
 In England it is quite different. The accused is brought to trial promptly and the jury's verdict is returned, the key is thrown away There is no appeal anywhere There is only one one man on earth who the condemned murderer The king cannot do it and parliament cannot do it. The home secretary can careful is he of that power that he seldom exercises it. and it is only in that friends of the have the hardi- hood to ask him to exercise it.
 There is other country where the laws are so generally observed as in England There are fewer murders in all England every year than are com mtted in either New York Chicago.