The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1921-10-26
AFTER THE COURTS.

The usual talk in condemnation Oh
the courts is going the rounds no"'
the grievance being that the mur-
derers of young Brazell were not
electrocuted at the time fixed by the
court. but the time of such exccu-
ton has been stayed by their giving
notice of appeal to the supreme
court. 1t is stated that these men have
delayed the execution Of the sem
tence imposed on them on a "tech-
nicality," and the courts get the
blame.
In the first place, granting that
the defendants should have been exc
cuted and an appeal should not have
been allowed in their cases, it seems
to US that a minutes consideration
by those acquainted with the law,
(aud those who criticise the law and
its administration by the courts
should be acquainted with the law
would have reminded the critics that
the courts do not make the laws.
There is a provision in the statute
law of this state that when one is
convicted of any offense, he may,
within ten days of the rising of the
court, give notice of his intention to
appeal to the supreme court, and
within thirty days thereafter he may
prepare his case and exceptions, and
that after the notice is given and the
case served, or until it is served, if
the thirty days have not expired, the
judgment of the court is stayed. Do
the critics of the court contend that
lie courts should disregard the plain
language of the statutory law of the
state and electrocute a man while the
law says the sentence is stayed? It
has become q habit with a great
many people to needlessly criticise
the Courts for matters over wh.c!
the courts have no control. If there
is ground for criticism in the cases
referred to here, the criticism sould
DO directed against the legislature
which made the Laws and not against
the courts which merely administer
the lawss.
In the cases referred to it appears
that the appeals taken may be with
out merit. We do not know all the
grounds of appeal, none of them in
fact, but the accounts of the trial
seemed to indicate beyond doubt that
the defendants are guilty and should
be punished according to law. But
the tribunal to decide that is the
same tribunal which passes, Oh every
other case in that jurisdiction. It
has been deemed wise to provide that
in all criminal cases a person shall
not be deprived of his liberty, to say
nothing of his life, until he has first
been tried in the court of sessions,
and then not until the supreme court
says that the trial was legal and free
from error. We believe the provis-
ions of the law are wise. The law can
not deal with individual cases; a gen.
, c-al rule must be made which pro-
teets the rights of all; and any man
ch"r-"d with crime has right to a
fair trial
=, - stated that the laws delays
furnish excuses for mob law. Perhaps
this is true. We think, too, that the
criticism of the courts for undertak-
ing to administer the law as it is writ
ten, and for undertaking to preserve
NotASSiSosioAoi ti6AtS III IIlS SOunITy,
Is as much responsible as anything
else for the contempt which some
people express for the law. The peo-
pie are taught to have no respect for
the law and to distrust the courts,
and are so taught by those who
should know better. They are respon-
sible for good deal of trouble which
is charged up to other people.
We do not deny that there may be
provision Of the law which should be
changed. The News and Courier sug-
gests that there should be speedy
hearing of appeals in cases of this
kind. To this we agree, provided the
hearings are not so speedy as to dis
regard proper consideration of cases.
1t may be that in criminal cases