Perth Amboy evening news., 1921-11-02
DEFENDS
VAN NESS ACT
Denies That Law Does Away
With Right of Trial
by Jury
SPEAKS IN MONMOUTH
Simply Provides That violat-
ors Should be Punished
Under Disorderly Act
SPEAKS IN MONMOUTH

ing before the Monmouth County Re-
nublican organization here today,
former Governor Z. c. Stokes. Re-
publican state chairman. denied that
the Van Ness act has taken away
from the New Jersey citizens tne
right of trial by jury. He claimed
that the G.. o. P. had not been par
ty to the denial of trial by jury IN
LIQUOR violations, and that the van
Ness act was not party 10 the oe-
NAL of trial by jury where oHenses
against the liquor laws were serious.
Continuing, the former governor
asserted that the Van Ness act sim
nIv proyides that violators should be
punished under the disorderly per-
sons act and that the act does not
provide for jury trial because IL
only covers trivial offenses. lie saio
:, that no person can be sent TO Ieue-
raj prison nor can be incarcerateo IN
the county Jail for a longer term
than six months.
"I doubt IL any student of the MS
tory of civilization questions Tor d d
moment the right of trial by Jury
said the former governor. w mem
ever a mans life or liberty Is In
volved to any extent, he is entltieu
| TO be judged by twelve OF his peers
But the fact that man may be en-
titled to a right, as in fundamental
and important cases. does not mean
| that it can be always exercised. Lile
is governed by practical aspects. II
a trial by jury were held IN every
case, of every minor onense. iike
violations OF the game laws. VIOLA
! tions of the automobile laws, disor-
| derly conduct and numerous other
1 ,txr- hours
| day would not be sufficient to I'M
panel all the juries necessary to con-
duct the trials and the machinery OF
| judicial procedure would be para
| lived. and an army of men would De
| drafted from business and profess
sional life and engaged in the court
room Instead of the usual actlvities.
| mo little confusion seems to ex-
ist in the minds of some concerning
the party's attitude on the eighteenth
amendment. The misunderstanding
that exists grows largely out of the
untenable impression that the eigh-
teenth amendment can be set aside
| and nullified by statuatory enact,
ment. Governor Edwards promised
that, but the constitution still STANDS.
| 1t is the supreme law of the lana.
The Republican platform or no other
platform can change it. even II thae
| had been the conventions WISH.
| 1.-The platform declared in connec-
| ton with this mooted question. for
law enforcement. No American
platform couid have done less. The
Republican platform does no more
Law must be obeyed or government
ends, nor can a just government
show any favoritism and enforce
some laws and permit others TO De
| violated.
you may not like the eighteenth
amendment. That is no reason TOT
its violation. If that were true, one
| would have the right to violate the
| law against larceny because he does
| not like it. The eighteenth amend
| ment never quenched any man
| thirst In fact, l think it intensl-
| fed it in many cases. But, If be-
cause a man is thirsty he claims the
right TO set aside the eighteenth
amendment. then man who is nun
| gry thinks ne has a right to SET aslue
| the commandment. "Thou shaIt no.
steap' and enter a baker snop anu
| appropriate part of its contents oI
the mother who needs milk for ner
child, could claim the right 10 IN
wade somebody's dairy to supply ner
needs. That principle. if conceded
to one must be conceded to all, ana
then organized COVE, nment would
| cola pse.
This isn't a question of wet or
dry. 1t is a question of law enforce
ment, pure and simple. and there
can be but one side to that question.
The difficulty of the situation in TINS
connection is that the question Is
being argued from personal OF
| prejudiced point instead of on the
basis of logic or fundamental prin-
ciple.
| .I know large number of Drys
who really haven't any notion why
| (Continued on page %