LAW AND JUSTICE v. JURIES.

NZ Truth, Issue 97, 27 April 1907, Page 1

LAW AND JUSTICE v. JURIES.

jhybgyubgyugybgbg

" No Irish Catholics Need Apply !"

The whole establishment of K-ing, Lords, and Commons, and all the Laws and Statutes of the Realm •have only one great object, and ■that is to bring twelve men into j a jury box.— Lord Brougham. <■ Le jury esfc avant tout une , institution politi<qjue. . ';• . L'homone gui juge au criminal est done reellment maitre do la societe. Or l'ini-rtlitutioii dv jury place le peuflte: lui— meme, on dv moms une classe de citoyeus, sur le si«ge dv juge. L'rnstitution dv jury met done reellemonit la direction de la societe dans les mains dv peuple, ouv de cstte classe— De TooqueviUe' : Del la Democratio en AimeriKiue. j It is to trial by junr'more than even by representation (as it at present exists) that the people owe tlte share they have m the government of the country ;. it is to trial by jury also that the Government mainly owes the attachment of the peopl'3 to the law ; a considerataon which ought to make our legislators very cautious how , they ta-ke away this- mode , of trial by new,triflinc;, and 'vexatious enactments. —Lord John Russell : On the English Government.

There -would seem to be a conspiracy, more .or less open and avowed, to degrade and destroy Trial by Jury m this country. Those who would destroy this admirable and uniquely British system of civil and criminal arbitration, are the coalesced reactionary forces of a covetous Capitalism ; those who would degrade it are the sectarian bigots. The first' always have 'been and ever will be opposed to any institution or law which places power in -the hands of the people ; the second, finding themseives'deprived of the power of religious persecution, wouM efiect their sinister sectarian purposes by process of judicial prosecution. Trial by jury is the lion m the path of both Capitalism and Sectarianism. Hence the delifberate purpose of the one anil , the other ' •&> destroy and degrade an institution of popular iuovernment whiten lias made , of Britain, politically, the most progressive, and, civilly, the most contented nation of mod-em times, and the admiration and envy of her, National contemporaries.

In the crusade against Trial by 'Jury, Parliament, the Press, and even the Judges m the Courts, have! joined hands with the reactionary forces. Ever since the inauguration of Federation disappointed the hopes of its promoters— that it would curtail the political power and popular rights of the people— yarious devices and dodges have been resorted to by the reactionaries to dam back the rising tide of democracy. Political "Reform" m the shape of reducing the representation of the people m Parliament, "Blue Laws" for •circumscribing the rational amusements and recreations of the people on week days and Sundays, and for declaring what, when, and how toe people shall eat and drink, and smoke and sleep, and love and wherewithal they shall lie clothed, ihavie been advocated, and, m many instances, allowed to pass into law -by a renegade, and reactionary puritanical Parliamentary majority. Magistrates and judges have been endowed with powers and prerogatives properly belonging to juries ; and a strong disposition is still exhibited both on the judicial bench, in' Parliament, and the press to further undermine the system of Trial by Jury. It may be inoidenirally mentioned here, that Coroner's Juries have been vitually abolished 3n this State ; magistrates have been given pi strict Court jurisdiction, white District Court judges are given jurisdiction m cases involving large interests htt'herto reserved to the ■jurisdiction of the Superior Courts and a jury. Thus is this palladium of popular rights and liberties being gradually and insidiously undermine* without "protest made h* those whose jveouiiaf province it ought to be to cherish a.nd defend m all its pristine puritr and constitutional integrity—Trial by Jury.

In this country, cradled m conxrictism. Old Lag traditions linger loog rind dip frardi itts chief ipuWic

monument is to Captain Phillip, the Chief Convict-Ganger of the First Fleet. Phillip's monument stands m pride of place m Sydney's principal park. This is, perhaps, one of the ; reasons why New South Wales has not been deemed worthy of Trial faiff Jury m its full integrity. Here we have only a crippled system of Trial by Jury. We only enjoy one-half of the institution. There is no Grand Jury here as m England and New Zealand, and elsewhere m the British Empire. In New South Wales the citizens only exercise the functions •of the" Petit Jury. Those of the Grand Jury are exercised by one man, a professionally trained and professionally biased lawyer, who is at tonee a political partisan and placefcnan, on the look-out for popular .applause and party approval as stepping stones to professional promomotion, which is the path to the ultimate goal of 'his ambition— the Jiuidicial Benoh. Yet it is this crippled, incomplete form of Trial by Jury that the opponents of that sysrtem .would, either curtail, or altogether demolish.' Why? Simply and solely because it is a popular insfiitu'ti'on m which the people 'tfcemsclvies pass judgment on their own liberty, lives and property, which, m the opinion of a large and influential reactionary minority, they ought not to be permitted to do.

Thene is no doubt but that this conspiracy against the jury system, Which is rapidly assuming the false appearance of a popular constitutional agitation for reform, is largely due to the apathy of the people themselves, and to the perfidy of pecuniarily putrid politicians. That Parliaments are what the people make them is pretty generally, accepted as a truism. How, much more true is iit that the institutions of a country are the reflex of the popular character. Popular institutions, good or bad, only last as long as the intelligence or apathy of the people permit. In this matter of Trial by Jiury, the abolition bf which no candidate for Parliament ■would dare 1 to advocaste, the greatest blow to its integrity and stability was dealt to it some time back by the direct representatives of Labor m Parliament. When the brother of tihe Jew mianey-lender, Friedman, . was convicted of receiving large auantdties of stolen goods, on . the plainest of possible proof, Mr B. R. Wise, then Attorney-Oenerai m the LyneSee Administration', liberated' ham m an unconstitutional and illegal manner, within twelxre hours after conviction. Mr Wisei's whole conduct m the tramsactiooi was surrounded with the most sinistea: suspicion. Wise was known to haye had . ttioney-lemd-ing dealings with the convicted Friedman's 'brother. AtHhe time every vacant space on the walls and 'hoardings of the cittr of- Sydney was placarded with a staterhent of that fact, and with the, accompanying innuendo that Wise had released Money-lender Friedman's "fence" brother m consideration of financial favors.

Here was ,, the chance for the Champions of the People's Cause to stand forth and defend Trial by. Jury. But what did they do ? They caucussed, and they caucussed, arid they caucussed m all due secrecy, Mr>> McGowen, the leader of the- Lfa'bor Party, and a large minority of the Caucus feeing desirous of condemning Mr. Wise's conduct. But then the Caucus and the Country had to count upon the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party m Parliament, Mr. W. A. Holman, the Labor Premier designatCj and his followers. Holman and his clutch of caucussers Out-caucus-sed McGowan's clutch of caucussers anu ")oor McGowen had to go into the Assembly and deliver a speech approving of Friedman's release, while all the time he and his immediate followers were condemning it m their hearts. Holman, who acted as "Barney" Wise's jackal m the Caucus, and his mouthpiece mi n the Assembly, went red-hot and redhanded for approving Wise's conduct. The task of defending Trial by Jury was left to the present Premier, Mr. Carruthers, then leader of the Opposition, and his immediate followecs. But with the help of the Solid

Vote of Labor Party, and mainly throu.sji the manoeuvring, of Mr. Holman, the Assembly endorsed. Mr. -JPK^:'S^coriliuCt in' ~iliesally ' releasing a convicted thief, brother of- the Jew money-lender Friedman, with whom he (Wise) <had financial dealings.

When politicians who aire returned to Parliament as direct representatives of the people thus play and palter v with the most precious of public institutions, is it any wonder that the Crown Law Authorities, the Police, the Press, some of the Judges, and the whole of the reactionary forces m concert, should decry and seek to discredit them ? Fro.n a collusive opposition to this precious and priceless privilege of Trial by Jury; to usin<: and abusing it for political partizan and religious sectarian purposes, is but a step. The action of the Crown at Darlinghusrt last week is proof conclusive of this contention, and it is no palliation of the Crown's conduct to say that it was not. a wit worse, even if it could be considered as bad as that of the Labor Party m the Friedman case. Jn all conscience it was bad enough, and ceminiscent of the most rascally days of sectarian savagery and political persecution m Ireland. Trial by Jury presupposes- a fair trial at the hands o ! f a just and impartial jury, whose verdict is delivered on the ev«dence without fear or favor of or to persons or parties.; free from religious" rancour or political partizan< ship, judicial dictation or popular clamor. Juries or jurors m their collective and individual capacities cannot te called to account for their conduct or deliberations m thQ 'jury room, which are secret and sacred m the eyes of the law, or for their decisions delivered m open Court, which must be unanimous, or they will not fee accepted or recognised by the Law.

It is no part or the Crown Law Authorities to know or seek to know who or what the jurors are who are summoned to try any particular case. The names, identies,, opinions, and intentions* of "jurors are not matters for the Grown investigation and inquiry per policepimp process, prior to the date fixed for the trial of, the case upon which they may be called to sit. This is the province and privilege of*- nobody ; it is no more the province and privilege of the Crown than of the accused persons whom the Crown is prosecuting. All the Crown is entitled'to'djo iis to do its -liest to secure a convict on by bringing evidence 'before the Court upon which the "twelve good men and true," chosen by lot m open Court, shall pronounce upon the guilt or innocence 6f the accused. Yet what do we find m this particular instance under consideration ? Let anyone read the record of the Crown's proceeding m regard to the jury, as disclosed m the first day's proceedings of the Crick and Willis trial for conspiracy. A . calm and . dispas;ionate consideration of the facts, as disclosed, must convince any impartial man and woman that a. most scandalous- attempt was made by the Crown to secure a conViction of the accused by a most nefarious process of jury-packing worthy of the worst days of English Protestant Coercion of English Catholics m Ire-, land. That is the only conclusion Ihat any sane or honest man or woman can come to on the facts disclosed.

What were the facts disclosed? That the Crown, by some means or other unknown to the law, or to the system of Trial by Jury, properly applied, had previously obtained a copy of the list of citizens summoned to serve as jurors. When the jury was being empanelled, Mr. Pilcher, K.C., was ready with a list of all the jurors, against the names of each being placed some mark or sign or written words indicating that m the opinion of somebody, probably the police-pimp or spy, such and such a person was 'favourable or unfavourable to one or both of the accused ; or that such and such another was an Irishman or a Catholic, or a publican, or a sportsman, or a protectionist politician, or something; or other which mught make him willing to give the accused a fair trial. Why an Irishman, a Catholic, a publican, a sportsman, n, politician, professing the fiscal faith of Protection, should be deemed unworthy or untrustworthy to sit on the trial of two Catholic protectionist politicians charged with conspiracy, surpass common unsectarian comprehension.

Isn't a reputable Irishman as good a citizen as a reputable Englishman, Scotchman, or Welshman, or a naturalised German, Scandinavian, Dutchman, Italian, Frenchman, Spaniard, or nondescript ,Jew ? Isn't a just Catholic as honorable a man as an Anglican, an English Wesleya-n, a Welsh Baptist, or a Scotch Presbyterian, an Atheist who makes an affirmation instead of making an oath, or a Jew who swears on the Old Testament with his hat an ? Tsn't a reputable law-abiding Irish Roman Catholic citizen as much entitled' to serve on a Criminal or Civil Jury as any, of his Majesty's

English, Scotch, Welsh, Australian, Jew, a nd Polyglot, black, brown, blue, brind'le, aad, piebald, &smti& amid African subjects ? What's the matter with the average Irishj Catholic as a citizen that -he should be ' excluded from serving on a jury when two Catholics. are 'being tried'? Surely m these enlightened days of British freedom and Christian charity and toleration a man is not to be socially banned aud judicially damn- | ed for being a Catholic ! An Irish Catholic Home Ruler is quite as good a citizen and loyal subject as an Irish Protestant, Orangeman, or \ a Dutch Boer m South Africa. If the Irishman is not condemned on the score of his religion, is it on the | ground of his nationality ? If so,, then it would seem that his devot'-f! ion to the constitutional cause of his. 1 country constitutes his chief crime m; the Sunny State of New South Wales, the home of Home Rule, m its highest and widest and freest sense arid signification. j • ■''*»'■■ • Whatever may. be the cryptic purport or purpose of the banning and damning of Irish Pjoniari Catholics m Australia, all calm and dispassionate persons whose reason is ruled by rational judgment, and not by religious rancour, can come to no otter conclusion than that it is primarily j intended to deprive. Catholic citizens accused of crime : of a fair and impartial trial by a properly chosen and unpacked jury of their peers. Catholics have as much' right to be tried' by Catholics as Protestants have to be tried by Protestants. Very often Catholics are tried by j juries com^posod. entirely of Protestants; ot this they do r.qt complain, because they believe ■tM jury has "been fairly olwjsea, ■ that ' It .has not been packed or tie nanel of .array tampr ered with by police pimps and spies. It never- falfs to the lot of a Protestant, to be tried try a jury , composed entirely of Catholics. ' Most juries comprise' all sects and shades of politics, and varying degrees of social and business ©tutus. Tb>y are tlje best* and. the ideal' juries, .which Catholic and Protestant, English and Irish, Scotch .an-jL ,sJt;l9h, Jew. - and Gentile, _ one__and_idii_alik£_ prefer.. But to single put and compel to stand 1 aside Irish Catholics, simply 'because they are Irish Catholics, is to •inaugurate m Sunny New South Wales the Dublin Castle methods of political persecution, judicial oppression, social depression), and police espionage, and packed juries of the Darkest Days of Coercion m Ireland. , • • • Whefer such a subversion of the system of Trial by Jury, with its concomitants of Jury Panel Sneaking Police Pimping, and Jury Packing will be tolerated, now that it has been openly exposed and denounced', by the generous Protestant people of New South Wales, remains to be seen. As an Anglican born and bred, I say to Irish Catholics that they ought not, that they dare not. as theY value their political and social rights and. privileges here, agitate for Home Rule for Ireland until they get and enjoy Real Home Rule ! here m Australia." JOHN NORTON.; Sydney, April -I*. 1907.1