Perth Amboy evening news., 1921-12-01
STAND BY YOUR GUNS

With the election based largely on the issue of the Van
Ness act over and the party responsible for the act returned
10 power, and with the decision of the supreme court hold.
ing that the Van Ness act is constitutional in every respect
The only consistent thing for the Republicans to do is to
stand by their guns. Having created an issue and success
fully fought out a red hot campaign based almost exclu-.
sively on that issue, why should the party now consider a
change?
The most Vulnerable part of the Van Ness act was the
fact that 1t did not permit a trial by jury. This feature has
been played to the limit by the liquor interests in an effort
10 persuade the people that they have been deprived of their
constitutional rights. One would think, Judging from the
alarm sent up by the booze interests, that this is the first
dime that trial by jury has been denied the people. As mat
ter OF TACT, the Van Ness act, as far as the denial of a trial
by jury is concerned, is no different from the motor vehicle
act, the fish and game act, the tenement house act, the law
regulating the practice of optometry and that regulating the
practice of dentistry. All of these deny the accused violat0rs
Jury trials. In the enactment of these laws nobody saw a
elbow at an institution that has served free countries for
Fcenturies.' Why should we be more solicitous for the boot
fegger that we are for the motorist, for instance, or the
shunter or the dentist? Why should the rights of a bootleg
ger or the law-defying booze dealer be of such great con-
Eeern?
If the Republican party is so anxious to assure Jury trials
Ito the offenders accused Of t~rafacking in that which is for
sbidden by the federal constitution it ought also to assure
sinry trials to all others who are now denied that privilege.
STo amend the Van Ness act, therefore, would mean the
Amending of all these other acts. If that is what the Repub-
Ricans who are so concerned about a trial by jury have in
slnind, all well and good. There is a grave question whether
any man should be deprived of his liberty without first
having the opportunity to have his case tried before a jury
oil ms peers no matter what ofense he may have committed.
When a man IS IN jail 1T makes little difference to him
whether his punishment is for a crime or a misdemeanor,
yet on that classification alone rests the determination
whether he shall have a jury trial or not.
But there is no reason why bootleggers should have our
particular sympathy in this regard. Men engaged in this
kind of business are about as low, as it is possible to get. On
what ground should they be singled out for special care and
protection? Can the Republican party, having enacted an
effective piece of legislation which has been declared by the
supreme court to be perfectly sound eonstitutionally, and
having been successful in a campaign in which this piece OF
legislation was the main issue, can the Republican party, we
say, now afford to show the white feather, retreat from the
position it has taken and truckle to the very interests that
did their level best to defeat that party at the last election?
II the party is not prepared TO repeal all the laws in which
trial by jury is denied let it stand by its guns and follow up
the work already accomplished in an aggressive fight to up
hold the constitution