THE COLONIST. Published Every Morning. Thursday. March 4. 1909. ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LAW COURTS.

Colonist, Volume LI, Issue 12479, 4 March 1909, Page 2

THE COLONIST. Published Every Morning. Thursday. March 4. 1909. ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LAW COURTS.

In the columns of the London "Evening Standard" recently, an extraordinary comparison was drawn between the courts of justice of England and the United States, in favour of the latter". The writer was aMr Ringrose, an American barrister, but a native of London. He found fault mainly with the levity commonly displayed in court, and with joke cracking judges, of whom England possesses not a. few, if biographical notices of the leading occupants of the bench are to be' relied upon. Such a thing as laughter in,. court, according to Mr Ringrose, would be impossible in America. \He found the contrast displeasing, and upon a three months' investigation- of British judicial methods, he pronounces; them inferior to those of the United States. "Englishmen in America (said the.correspondent) -boast-so much' of English courts, and the historian, poet, and novelist have cast such a glamour over the subject, that I reverently approached the temple of justice on the Strand. Imagine the iiock to my patriotism and professional equilibrium to find conditions which are impossible even in a. frontier town in the United States. ' After three months careful study of English judicial procedure, I am convinced, against my inclination, that the standard in America is much higher; lam disgusted to find that the cap and bells of a jester would be more appropriate for some English judges than the judi-' cial wig and gown. After a dozen ,';-ars' practice before the quiet, dignified and efficient judges on the American Bench, I am startled and disheartened at listening to the buffoonery of English judges. Where.l expected to find impressive dignity I -co .nothing but comic opera : rehearsal. Why is it the ordinary newspaper account of the trial in the High Courts contains so many brackets enclosing the word 'laughter,' etc.? A trial in New York city compares with one in London as a cathedral service compares with a music 1 hall performance. 'Ah,' says someone, 'remember the Thaw trial in New York.' I do remember it. I was^ present from start to finish, having known all the principals. I know that the Thaw trial was conducted with the greatest possible fairness, science, and dignity. I know it was tried on both sides with an exhibition of. skilled advocacy that would open the eyes of some of the be\vigged barristers of London. I know that the result was a vindication of the law of the land. Another thing I noticed in a London court which ia scandalous, and would not be permitted in America, and that was a son as an advocate trying .-a" case before his own father on the bench. That is as the Yankee would say, "'the limit.'" In spite of Mr Ringrose' s defence of American courts, Englishmen are not likely to feel alarmed as to the result of a proper comparison. The amazing conduct of the trial of the Sanj Francisco "grafters" and ev«n after events in the "fair, scientific and dignified" trial of Harry K. Ihaw, were reproaches that Americans deplored, and others marvelled at. The testimony of countless Americans and the American press generally, to the superiority of the British judicial system, carries more weight than the disappointed utterances of a solitary Englishman, estranged from British math ode by long practice at the Araexicau bar. y . j