Year: 1875

" and De1ng tried Tor the penlteniarJ
or his life, has to mortgage his little al
Of worldly means to employ lawyers to
defend him against the prosecution Of
other lawyers. who are paid by the
State at the expense of its tax ridden
people to prosecute innocence as well
as guilt, and then finally goes to the
pcnitentiary or the gallows, leaving bis
wife and children destitute, aad his
property in the possession of lawyers,
who probably made an hours speech
for him, or at most did not devote 3
whole day to his interest. Why can
not the accused be brought before the
jury who are to try him, the witnesses
examined by the foreman or the judge,
and then allow them to decide upon
his guilt or innocence, without being
kept away from their homes for several
days listening to the harangues of
lawyers ? a punishment often greater
than that they inhict upon the prisoner.


AS / have stated lit is the duty Of
the jury to make their verdict in ac-
cordance with the law and the eyidence
of the witnesses. The evidence they
must hear themselves, and if they do
not understand the law it is the duty
of the Judge to explain it to them, and
not the lawyers. Then why have their
minds embarrassed with long speeches,
some trying to make them believe that
black is white, and others the reverse,
thereby excluding from their memory
much of the evidence given by the
witness? This, to say the least of it,
is simply nonsense. How often is it
the case that the party who has the
most money to employ the best lawyers,
though wrong, triumphs over right ?
How often is it the case that the rich
murderer, owing to his ability to pur-
chase all of the best lawyers, goes
forth from the bar Of justice free
man, and continues to live in style and
luxury With his family and friends,
whilst the poor, petty thief for taking
a few of the necessaries of life is sem
fenced to years of hard labor in the
penitentiary, and his wife and children
left to go to the poor house or perish,
because he has not money enough to
purchase the lawyers influence 1? Is
all of this justice? 1t may be called
SO by Insignificant man, but when the
appeal is taken Gas it surely will be),
to the great Supreme Court, and bar
Of real justice, where no lawyers can
ever possibly be admitted, then the
responsibility will fall to those to whom
it belongs. If person is accused of
crime, let him be tried by the duly
authorized judge or jury of his coun-.
trymen, as the law requires. If he is
guilty, let him be punished. If he is
innocent, let him go free, and not
force him to give his little all of world
ly wealth. causing his innocent family
to suffer for the necessaries of life, In
order to fee lawyers to defend him
against the prosecution of other law
yers, employed by his own State to
prove him guilty if possible, whether
he is really so or not, he having HIM
self, also, part Of their fee to pay in
the way of taxes. a


If man is charged with crime and
be is proven guilty by competent wit
nesses, then no one should be permit
ted to shield him from the just punish
ment of the law. On the other hand,
if a man is accused Of crime and CON-
petent witnesses prove him innocent,
then it is certainly very wrong for the
prosecuting attorney to try to induce
the jury to condemn him to punish
ment.


And yet both Of these things are done
at nearly every criminal trial coming
up before our courts. A man, for in-
stance, is placed in Jail, charged with
the crime of deliberate murder. He
is known to be guilty, without adoubt,
for a half dozen responsible persons
saw him commit the deed. This same
criminal has hired and paid two or
three, or it may be half dozen, intel
ligent, honorable and respectable citi-
zens to do all they can to shield him
from prison or the gallows, and if pos
sible from any punishment whatever.
And yet it is all done in accordance
with law and justice. What law? and
what justice? And thus is the law
often defed and real justice set aside.
for money, by high toned and honor
able citizens in the garb of the profess
Sion and practice of law.


Then again, lawyers are generally
extrayagant in their charges, often
charging five or ten dollars for advice
given in FIVE minutes or one hundred
dollars for speech made in about an
hour, that was much more interesting
to themselves than to any other per-





son, and as general rule, for all busI-
ness tkcy do they over estimate the
value Of their services far beyond even
the imagination of all common people.
Sometimes they claim, as an excuse
for these high charges. theloss oftime
and money spent in gaining knowl-
edge of law. | will readily agree with
them about the time being lost, but
then it don't require more loss Of time
to make lawyer than it does doctor,
and country doctor will ride five
miles, talk to his patient two hours
and pour down his throat quart of
poisonous stuff, all for about two dol
lars, whilst the lawyer will charge his
patient five or ten dollars for talking
to him as many minutes, and not leave
his easy chair to do SO. 1t requires a
much longer time, and generally more
brains, to make frst-class mechanic
than it does to make a lawyer; andyet
they will work foryou all day, in a way
too that will he of some benefit, for
q II - a.. ,.....L -.