Jackson advocate. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1939-current, 1957-05-25

can rectify the harm which the
national interest suffers when cit
liens are illegally kept from the
polls. Furthermore, criminal pros
ecutions are often unduly harsh
in this particular field where the
violators may be respected local
officials"
Civil rights legislation has been
blocked for years by the filibuster
and other devices. This year it is
being opposed especially on the
ground that persons who are
charged with contempt of federal
court injunction restraining inter-
ference with the right to vote will
not receive a trial by jury. OPP
ponents of the legislation correctly
state that under present law, al
though person charged with
criminal contempt is generally en-
titled to a jury trial when the en-
Joined acts would be a violation of
the criminal law, he is not entitled
to it in a case where the United
States has brought the action for
injunction, as would happen under
the proposed civil rights legisla-
ton.
The right of trial by jury is
rooted deep in our constitutional
guarantees, to prevent the power
of government being used as
weapon of oppression, among other
purposes. The American Civil Lib
critics Union has been a vigorous
defender of this right, even in some
areas where it is not strictly re-
quired constitutionally, because of
our strong belief that the abuse of
governmental power can be limited
by juries, which represent cross
section of community sentiment
rather than the views of single
Judge. This concern for the cit
izen's liberty has made us appre-
hensive of broadening the power of
federal courts to prohibit crimi-
nal conduct under the threat of
punishment for criminal contempt,
as indicated in our February II
statement on the Clinton, Tenn,
case. That case concerned John
Kasper and 16 other anti-integra-
tionists who were arrested for con-
tempt Of the court order enjoin-
ing them from interfering with the
Clinton school Indignation pro-
gram.
The Constitution guarantees jury
trial only in criminal cases, and
in civil suits involving more than
twenty dollars; there is no such
guarantee in contempt cases. Un-
til 1914, Congress made no pro-
vision at all for jury trials in con-
tempt cases where the acts were
also violations of federal or state
criminal laws except, in order that
the Federal government might
carry out its functions and enforce
the laws of the land, in cases to
which the United States is party.
Another exception was made in
1882, when the Norris-LaGuardia
Anti-Injunction Act accorded la
Dor unionists jury trials when they
were charged with contempt of
court injunctions in strike situa-
tions.
The absence of a jury trial in
suits brought by the government
is not unusual. There are at least
% other laws under which the U.
S. is authorized to seek injunctions,
without provision for jury trials;
these include the antitrust laws,
the Atomic Energy Act, the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Securi-
ties and Exchange Act and acts
affecting the Interstate Commerce
Commission and Fair Trade Com
mission. Moreover, jury trials in
contempt proceedings are not gen.
orally required under the constitu-
lions or laws of the States, includ-
ing the Southern States.
After full and careful study of
the possible need for jury trial
amendment to the proposed civil
rights legislation, we are convinced
that the present jury trial argu-
ment is chiefly contrived obstruc-
ton to defeat the desperately
needed civil rights legislation. So,
we are vigorously opposed to any
amendment requiring jury trial.
What are the reasons for the
ACLU's opposition to the jury
amendment
1. While there is always need to
guard vigilantly against the misuse
of government power, including in
functions which are too broad and
restrain constitutional activity las
we have recently argued is the
case in the Clinton, Tennessee in
junction), there is also need to
prevent weakening the power Of
our courts to uphold the law Of
the land. The right Of equal treat.
ment under law is fatally under