""" 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
