756 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



the decision might very properly be left to the judge, who, if he 

 chooses now, can, to a certain extent, control the jury. But — on ac- 

 count probably of the jealousy of lawyers — the tendency in recent 

 years has been for the court to express no opinion, but to "instruct" 

 the jury in a way to throw them still more on their own resources by 

 pointing out that, zy they think so-and-so, then their verdict must be 

 80-and-thus ; while if they think the evidence warrants a so-and-thus 

 conclusion, then the verdict must be so-and-so ! If the court shows a 

 leaning, and charges in accordance, exceptions are taken, and on an ap- 

 peal a new trial may be granted, usually with an advantage to one 

 side, particularly in criminal cases. Time dims the edge of one witness's 

 memory, while others may die, or run awaj'^, or may come into court 

 with revised testimony, and a case very clear if tried early loses much 

 of its clearness and perhaps some of the witnesses five years after 

 date. Lawyers know this, and in desperate cases count always on the 

 gains of delay. It is an outrage on justice which the people privately 

 anathematize. But what can be done against "the majesty of the 

 law" when lawyers wink at and support the rotten system? Even 

 the judges are silent, and when they do speak it is not to denounce the 

 foundation of abuses of the legal profession. In cases where judges 

 bold office for life, one would expect them to be really independent of 

 bar influences, and ready to lead in the great reforms needed. But, 

 having been lawyers before they were judges, it seems too much to 

 expect that they will rise above bar influences, and hence, as we get 

 little aid from them, it will be left for the people themselves to attach 

 as many modern improvements to jurisprudence as mark our advance 

 in oth-^r callings. 



Many minor abuses can be mentioned which ought to be easily re- 

 formed. One very gross one is the forcible detention of innocent 

 witnesses of a crime. A person far from home, and a stranger, can be 

 imprisoned indefinitely to secure the " ends of justice " in case bail 

 can not be given for attendance at the trial. There is no law to take 

 the testimony of such a witness and discharge him, but legal conserv- 

 atism requires that he shall "confront" the accused in open court. 

 It IS right that this should be done when it does not in itself become 

 a punishment of the innocent, but the bearing of a witness in court 

 has no such value as justifies an outrage on his rights. The testimony 

 might be quickly taken verbatim, followed by a cross-examination, 

 with notes as to the witness's " bearing," and he then be left to go 

 his way. As to his credibility, that could usually be ascertained at 

 his residence, and his testimony could then be submitted for what it 

 was worth. This would entail little or no hardship on anybody, and 

 generally would promote the ends of justice quite as well as now. 

 Sometimes, as in an instance in New York in 1885, a crime is com- 

 mitted against a respectable woman, and on making complaint against 

 her ravisher she is imprisoned with thieves and prostitutes to insure 



