Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-07-24

Although I usually find
myself in agreement with the
editorial policies of The Star,
/ cannot go along with your
support of the innovation of
jury trials in contempt cases
as expressed in your editorial
of July 10. entitled. The
Clinton Case Jury"
In that editorial you stated
that one of the points
now being debated by the
Senate, in its consideration
of the civil rights bill,
is whether to abandon" the
tradition of jury trials. On
the contrary. it has been es-
tablished beyond a doubt
that the question is not
whether to abandon any ira
ditional right. The question
is whether to extend trial by
jury to proceedings in which
it has hitherto been unavail-
able; that is, to contempt
proceedings in which the
United States is a party to
the original action.
Your statement that "un-
der the civil rights bill the
Clinton trial would be TAX
ing place without a jury" is
simply not so and must be
the result of inaccurate le-
gal information which you
have received.
While the civil rights bill
would enable the Attorney
General to proceed for the
United States in the first
instance. in which case there
would be no jury trial. 1t
would not prohibit private
individuals from proceeding
as they did in the Clinton
case. Therefore, had the
Clinton case been instituted
after enactment of the pro-
posed civil rights bill the de-
PENDANTS would be entitled
to trial by jury Just as they
are today.
Kenneth B. Heating,
Representative from New
York.
I do not agree with your
July 10 editorial, entitled
Jury Trial-the Chief Is
sue," in which you talk about
the expedient avoidance of
jury trials in the civil rights
BILL"
1t appears to re that the
denouncers Of civil rights
legislation who are raising
the hue and cry about
denial Of the sacred right
to trial by jury" in contempt
cases are admitting that they
intend to violate injunctions
and other court orders in
civil rights cases. and they
want it made easy for them
to do so by assuring them
selves Of trials by juries
which they know will not
convict.
II the opponents of civil
rights legislation had no such
intention they would not be
insisting on such an amend
ment. There would be no
need for it. They would be
willing to abide by the rulings
of the courts no matter what
they might be. or, at the very
least, to appeal such rulings
by means of the legal proc
esses already available in
contempt cases.
1t is inconceivable that the
trial : by Jury -for-contempt
enthusiasts are willing to
sacrifice upon the altar OF
expediency the traditional
authority Of our courts to en-
force their own DEGREES. It is
one thing to be opposed to
civil rights legislation. 1t is
quite another thing-and a
far more serious thing - to
serve the cause of the an
archy that would result IL our
courts were stripped OF this
power.
These proponents of jury
trial for contempt are arguing
in imprisoned language that
civil rights advocates are at
tempting to deprive" citizens
Of q fundamental constitu-
tional right, when they know
full well-or should know
that there is no constitutional
right to trial by jury for
either civil or criminal con-
tempt. Furthermore, how can
someone be deprived" Of a
right which he never had in
the first placer
They point to the Norris
LaGuardia Act as q shining
example Of how jury trials
we're permitted In contempt
cases in labor disputes. when
they know full well-or
should know-that' this Law
was . unique exception de-
signed TO protect working
men against unjust injunc-
tons by antilabor Federal