Reflections of a lawyer,

Stanford Law Library

government. If President Roosevelt were criticised
and dishonesty imputed to him, he would have no
greater right to redress his grievance of a false and
malicious tongue than a private citizen, and his
remedy would be by a suit at law for damages; he
could not in a summary way deprive any man of his
rights and liberties for such criticism. As a matter
of fact and law, more latitude is given to the citizen
accused of slandering or libeling a public official than
to one accused of the same act toward a private
citizen. One that assumes a public office subjects
himself to public discussion and criticism, and he
cannot put a lock on the public and claim the right
to be let alone as a private individual. His acts are
not private acts which should give him the right
of privacy. Such is the law sanctioned by public
opinion concerning all the departments of our gov-
ernment with the exception of the judiciary, which
seems to be surrounded by a halo of sacredness so
that no one dares touch it. In European monarchies
there is a special crime known as "Lese Majeste,"
which is contempt of the dignity of the king, and
certain punishments are prescribed for the com-
mission thereof. The party charged with such a
crime is tried by a proper tribunal, and the king
himself cannot impose any punishment; he cannot
sit in judgment in a case where his own dignity is
involved, and no tribunal can convict a man on such
a charge in a summary way. In this free country
we have a crime known as "Contempt of Court," and
the party charged with it is punished summarily by
the judge against whom the contempt is alleged to

7

have been committed, and this same judge acts as court, jury, complainant and witnesses all in one. While in European countries there can be only one tyrant against whom contempt may be committed, in this country we can have thousands of tyrants who may inflict punishments on free citizens summarily like the Czar of Russia.

There is no reason why the judiciary should stand higher than any other department, nor has it excelled in any way. In a very short time two judges, Bolte and Fitzgerald, were removed for maladministration of justice. We must not forget, by the way, that to remove a judge is one of the most difficult tasks. Our law is so technical that the gravest wrong committed by a judge can rarely be proven; his decisions, however outrageous, can be shown to have been rendered according to law. Unless a judge be so stupid as to violate justice openly and notoriously, he may prostitute justice with impunity. He will, moreover, find many to sing panegyrics to him, and exalt him for his sense of justice, for his keen observation in finding the truth, for his great knowledge of human nature, and for his deep understanding of the law. In proceedings against a judge it is hardly possible to secure witnesses to divulge the truth, so great is the fear of the judiciary; and should the prosecution fail, the witnesses, who are of necessity mostly lawyers, would have to suffer severe consequences, as it would then be almost impossible for them to appear before that judge. The proceedings in Judge Bolte's case isclose the fact that the lawyers subpoenaed by the

0

Reflections of a lawyer,

Stanford Law Library

prosecution tried their utmost to favor Bolte, although they suffered the greatest abuses from him, all for fear that in case the prosecution should fail, they couldn't possibly appear before him. And if we take into consideration the statement made in your editorial that "hardly half of the admitted lawyers in New York can earn net the wages of a skilled mechanic," it is evident that to those lawyers the displeasure of a judge may mean starvation. Our judges are invested with so much discretionary power, that having the favor of a judge, even of the fairest, is a good fortune to a lawyer. In all cases involving questions of fact, and most cases do, it is in the discretion of the trial justice to decide either way, as he may believe the version of the story of either of the two parties. Even most questions of law are doubtful, and judges will differ among themselves. With all the greatness of our judiciary it has left us an inheritance of a confused mass of law, and law is practically the last guess of the Court of Appeals. Why the Judiciary should be in such high veneration, it is difficult for my humble lawyer-brain to comprehend.

(Observations and Scenes in 1900.)

"In the place of justice there is wickedness; In the place of righteousness there is iniquity."—Ecc. 3:16.

"I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun; and beheld the tears of the oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter." -Id. 4:1.

Essex Market Court-What a terror that name throws into the heart of the East Side dweller! See that peddler tremble upon being taken to Essex Market Court by a policeman to answer for standing on one place a minute longer than prescribed by the City Ordinances. It is not for the fine he will have to pay that he shivers so much, but for the abuse and misuse by the rough and cruel hands that he will be subjected to before the magistrate pronounces his sentence. Look at that innocent man with the gray beard, how he cowers and how his face is covered with a cold perspiration, when threatened to be summoned to "Essex Market Court" to answer some imaginary petty offense. Here a woman has fainted when served with a suminons with a little

Reflections of a lawyer,

Stanford Law Library

ESSEX MARKET COURT.

51

red seal. She knows of no offense committed by her other than a trivial quarrel with a next door neighbor. It is not the punishment she is so much afraid of. She knows too well that at worst she can be fined with a couple of dollars only. But the humiliation she will have to stand presses her down, the rough handling of the police officials, and the inquisition-like atmosphere of Essex Market Court. Babes are hushed in their cradles when threatened to be taken to the judge in "Essex Street."

Essex Market Court-how dark and gloomy the building looks! Its very aspect is appalling. It is a picture of fright, an image of dread, and an embodiment of terror. The drops of the ocean cannot be counted, nor the innocent tears shed within the walls of that Court. The sighs and groans of its victims would be heard far and wide, were they. not suppressed by the strong fist of the brutal official.

The Essex Market Court police officer is the meanest and basest creature on earth. Politeness, respect and pity are meaningless terms to him. He is rough, hard-hearted and cruel. He considers himself monarch of the court room and his will is law which all must obey. He is a petty tyrant and his rule is absolute. The people that come to the court for redress of grievances are pavement on which he walks with impunity. The court house, the Magistrate, the laws were all made specially to satisfy his greed and ferocity.

During the hours when justice is administered, there stand occasionally two or three officers out