Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-07-10
UNDER WHAT RULES?

Under what rules of procedure will William Hohen-
xollern be tried? 1t has been at least tentatively decided
that the trial will take place in England. Will the Eng
lsh procedure be followed? Upon Oe procedure win
depend the whole character of the trial, and the ability
OF this or that section of the general public to follow i'll
important differences in court procedure as practiced
by the various great nations.
SIS The French and Italian systems are similar in that
the purpose of a trial in either of these purposes is, or at
least appears to those of Anglo Saxon associations the
conviction of the accused. The assumption is that the
individual officially charged with crime is guilty. and the
purpose Of the court is to convict him officially OF the
crime of which the court is convinced in advance he is
guilty. That is doubtless not an accurate statement of
the real theory of the French and Italian systems, but
those systems in operation certainly create that impression
In the minds Of those of more western nations. The at
mosphere Of the court in either of those countries is de-
cidedlS hostile to the prisoner. The luckless individual
Is treated as if he were already Convicted. He is badgered
and harried, is compelled to endure an inquisitorial ex-
animation whether, he wishes to testify or not, and the
Judge often seeks to browbeat him.
The British practice. and the American practice,
which is based on, it, are entirely different. The theory
in these countries is that the purpose OF a trial is not to
convict anyone. but to ascertain the facts and administer
Justice. The prisoner sits in the dock clothed in the gar
ment Of presumptive innocence. And that presumption
is no mere fiction, for while in the Latin courts the pris-
oner is deemed guilty unless he is able to establish his in
nocence, in the Anglo-Saxon courts no matter what pri-
vate opinions individuals may entertain concerning him,
it is not necessary for him to call any witnesses, to testify
in his own behalf. or to give any account of himself. He
may do any or all of these things if he chooses, and if
he thinks it desirable in this manner to refute testimony
which has been given against him. But the choice is his
alone, and under no circumstances can he be required
to give testimony against himself. And, no matter how
strong the probability of his guilt may be, in the light
of the evidence against him. there can be no conviction
unless that testimony. and that testimony alone, shall
convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
He may be actually guilty. The jury may be morally
convinced that he is guilty. But If there is a flaw in the
evidence as officially presented, so that, by that evil
free man. q
In actual practice the American system differs from
the British in that greater latitude is allowed the &C.
c1sed, and that minor technicalites are more often adj
mitted as sufficient to overturn convictions in which all
the essentials are ample for the verdict. The British
judge ofhciates as the actual controlling and directing
influence in an impartial inquiry. The American judge
very often functions more as the referee in a contest of
wits between attorneys
If the procedure at this trial is to be that of the
country in which the trial is held, we of this country
may regard it as fortunate that the trial is to take place
IN England.