Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (July 31, 1908)
""" 1 j'D ' JULY 81, 190S The Commoner JURY TRIAL IN CASES OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT In the democratic national Dlatform It la i said: "Experience has proven the necessity of a modification of the present law relating to in junctions, and we reiterate the pledge of our national platforms of 1896 and 1904 in favor of the measure which passed the United States eonato in 1896, but which a republican congress has over since refused to enact, relating to con tempts In federal courts and providing for trial by jury in case of indirect contempt." The measure referred to passed the United States senate .Tune 10, 1896. The sentiment in its behalf was so nearly unanimous that no roll call was taken on the passage of the bill. Sen ator Piatt of Connecticut alone made vigorous opppsition to It. This measure then was passed by republi can asi well as democratic votes. A cloud of .dust has been raised by repub lican leaders for. the purpose of misrepresent ing this measure, but the fact remains that it simply proposed to change the existing law by providing that when a person was charged with a contempt of court committed outside the judge's presence, then the accused could, if he desired, have a jury trial. -Although there was no roll call on the passage of this bill, a roll call was taken for the purpose of discovering whether there was a quorum present, and this roll call Bhowed that among tho distinguished republicans who .were present, and acquiescing in the passage of this measure were the following: John Sher man of Ohio, William B. Allison of Iowa, Eugene Hale of Maine, Joseph B. Hawley of Connecticut, Justin S Morrill of Vermont, Knuto Nelson of Minnesota, Francis E. Warren of Wyoming. The measure grew out of a resolution in- troduced January 23, 1896, by Senator Call of Florida. This resolution provided for the ap--pointment of a special committee of seven sen ators who should be charged with the duty of inquiring into the Imprisonment of Eugene V. Debs for an alleged contempt of court. The committee was directed to recommend such legislation' "as may be necessary for tho just enforcement of the law and the protection of citizens from arbitrary and oppressive exercise of judicial power." On January 28, Senator Hill of New .York offered, as an amendment to the Call resolu- tion, the following: "Resolved, That the judiciary committee is hereby directed to investigate the whole sub ject of contempts of court as enforced by tho federal court and report to the senate, whether any additional legislation is necessary for, the protection of the rights of citizens." These two resolutions were referred to the judiciary committee and on February 4, 1896, that committee speaking through Mr. Hill re ported in favor of passing the resolution in this form: "Resolved, That the judiciary committee is hereby-, directed to investigate the law upon the whole subject of 'contempts of court' as en forced by the federal courts and report to tho senate wlietlier any additional legislation is necessary for the protection of the rights of citizens; and if so to report such legislation." On March 5, 1896, tho resolution as amend ed by the judiciary committeo was agreed to. On May 6, 1896, tho judiciary committeo reported tho bill favorably. On that day Sen ator Allen Introduced an amendment providing for the right of trial by jury. When on May 13, 1896, a bill for tho gov ernment of tho courts in tho Indian Territory, was under consideration, Senator Allen offered an amendment to that measure in theso words: "Provided, that In all trials for contempt of court In any United States court, except tho Bupreme court in tho United States, tho rfecused shall, on demand', be ontltled to a trial -by jury." Senator Vilas, who had charge of tho bill, pro tested that Senator Allen's amendment would not bo germane to the measure Senator Allen insisted that it was and ho made his speech vig orously supporting his point. Senator Hill of Now York, Senator Vilas of Wisconsin, Senator Pugh of Alabama, and Senator George of Mis- Blssippi, assured Mr. Allen that if he wp.uld with draw his amendment they would endeavor to co-operato with him In the passage of some such provision in tho regular bill relating to contempt. Senator Allen then said that with this understanding ho. would withdraw his amendment. On Juno 9, 1896, the senate, in committee of the whole, proceeded to consider the bill. Senator Hill pointed out in his address to the committee of tho whole that the then existing law on the subject was as follows: "The said courts (federal courts) shcM have power to impose and administer all necessary oaths nnd to punish bv fine or Im prisonment at the discretion of tho courts contempt of their authority; provided that such power to punish contempt shall not be construed to extend to any cases except tho misbehavior be by any person in tlulr pres ence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, tho r-isbehavior of any of tho officers of said courts in their official transactions and tho disobedience or resistence by any such officer or by any party, juror, witness or other persons to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, de cree, or command of the said courts." Senator Hill said that it was not Intended in the presentation of his bill to reflect upon the judiciary, but "it "was Intended simply to say that experience has shown that this power may be abused and therefore it is wise to reg , ulate it and restrict it, to prescribe certain rights that the accused sha.ll enjoy,, and that, Mr. President, is the object of the pending bill." Senator Hill said that the committee had thought It wise to declare that there shall bo two forms of contempt, "direct contempt" or that committed in the presence of tho judge, and "indirect contempt," that committed out side the judge's presence. Senator Hill pointed out that theso terms, "direct" and "Indirect" contempt, had been coined by the federal courts themselves. He pointed out that his bill nro- vided that in any case of indirect contempt "the trial shall proceed upon testimony produced as In criminal cases and tho accused shall bo ontltlod to bo confronted with Uto witnesses against him, but such trial shall ho by tho court or In its discretion upon application of tho accused a trial by jury may bo had as In any criminal case If tho accused bo found guilty Judgment will bo cntored accordingly, prescribing tho punishment." Mr. Hill explained thnt part of tho committeo thought that tho party should bo of right ontitled to a trial by Jury and that such a privilege should not depend upon tho discre tion of the court. Ho said that- while tho committee was oqually divided on this proposi tion they thought it Aviso to report tho bill in this form and ho said that ho expected that an amendment, would be offered to ntriko out tho words "in Its discretion" nnd changing tho "may" to "shall."- r Mr. Butler of North Carolina bffercd an amendment to , strike out so that tho bill, would read "such trial shall, upon applications "thef accused, bo dt trial by jury as in an criminal case." Senator Hill pointed out that.'jiccording to tho langungo of the Butlor amendment, If the defendant did not mako tho application for a jury trial thero was no provision loft;' for'' trial by tho court. And so Senator Mil suggested that tho bill bo changed to read in this way. "But such trial shall be by tho court or upon application of tho accused a trial by jury shall bo had as In any .criminal case." ,. Senator Butler accepted Senator Hill's' bub- gestion. On Juno 10, 1896, tho bill came up for consideration. Senator Allen of Nebraska, who had, on tho provious day, again introduced an amendment withdrew his amendment and tho amendment as proposed by Senator Butler and corrected by Senator Hill, was agreed to. Tho bill was then reported to tho sonato as amended, and tho amendments wero con curred in. Then the bill was ordered to bo en grossed for a third reading and was read the third time. Mr. Piatt of Connecticut, who had vigorously fought the bill, protested against tho passage of it "In tills way." And ha asked that the vote bo put. Tho vice president sub mitted to tho senate the question, "Shall tho bill pass?" Tho sentiment In Its favor was so nearly unanimous that tho bill passed without a roll call. ' Although on the day of tho bill's passage tho amendment actually accepted was offered by Senator Butler it was Senator -Allen who first offered tho jury trial amendment and fought at every opportunity for its adoption. Because of this the jury trial bill was known as "tho IIH1 bill and the Allen amendment' This was the measure which tho .repub lican housc refused to pass the measure which the democratic national platform of 1908 en dorses. Republican leaders dare not disQUss- this proposition on its merits for who in a republic would undertake openly to say that trial by jury is not a right to which tho individual-is entitled or that such a right may safely,. bp do-,, nied so far as society is concerned? . , STANDARD OIL DECISION DESCRIBED BY A REPUB- ' , ,!, - ra "If this is law it must cease to be Jaw. Tliis, artificial creature, the cor- Vporn tion, must not in its ubiquity forever Escape tho single justice which tho nat ural individual must face. If, through defects in our procedure, an actual iden tity now able to escape its own mis deeds by ' n mere fiction, thnt fiction should bo destroyed by statute. Chica go Tribune (rep.) Thursday, July 23. LIC4N PAPER if, -If your republican neighbor is unable to understand, from news reports, tho Standard Oil decision, ask him to read an editorial that appeared in tho Chicago Tribune (rep.) issue of July 23. For your convenience The Commoner prints that editorial in full. It follows: THE STANDARD OtL DECISION .With the adverse decision of the United States, circuit court of appeals for the Seventh district the twenty-nine million dollar, flnp passes into our rpo)ltico-econopiic history. Jt'w,as a striking' and significant Incident, the, Im'pp tance of which will dwindle rapidly in the per spective of time. Judge fcandis'tdceision is reversed on three chief points. , Upon the. first tho court JLnqffpct holds-that in .prosecution -under the Elklns -act the burden is upon the government to prove, as bearing upon the question of intent, that tho shipper was Aware of the lawful published ratq. The court in thus placing the burden upon the prosecution distinguishes cases under the Elkins act from cases brought under the statutes against smuggling, tho sale of liquor to minors, and other fiscal and police regulations, in which penalties attach irrespective of proved intent. In thus deciding the court's .reasoning fol I lows Jthe general objection made .to the JLandis . decision to the effect that It placed Yupon shipr i 1 pcrs a burden of extreme caution and if strict ly enforced would necessitate every small ship per's careful and expert examination of confus ingtarifC schedules to ascertain whether of not the rate he was 'charged and was paying was actually the legal published rate. This, the court declares, would restrain commerce, where as the 'interstate commerce law was enacted to promote commerce by securing fair dealing through uniformity. Upon the second point, that tho number of offenses was the number of cars shipped, tho court holds that as the offense denounced by the statute Is tho acceptance of a concession in respect to thd transportation of property, tho gist of the offense is tho acceptance of tho con cession irrespective of whether the property involved was carloads, tralnloads, or pounds, and that tho act punishable is consummated only by the actual payment of the concession by money payment or the offsetting of mutual accounts-' Upon the thirdj,point, did the trial court in tho fine Jmjpose1 abusq, its discretion, or, in other words, was tho fine ejscesplye; the appel- ? Ai 4 i f4! iffl u M f n i Mil "1 it al u ggftAgKtfwtfeaMGife; -iUUt mT. J . 'lA