Page images
PDF
EPUB

bar are, of course, vitally interested, but so too is every other citizen, in having justice administered by experienced, competent and honest judges. But the lawyers constitute a relatively small group in the community. When they have, as they should, taken the initiative and have afforded to the general public a basis upon which they can exercise the franchise intelligently, it then becomes the duty of every civic agency to unite to make the action of the bar effective. Lawyers should, as they generally do, bear their share, but it is also eminently proper that all public spirited citizens and all civic organizations seeking good government, should unite in bearing the expense of a campaign of publicity such as I have mentioned. This Association and other similar organizations, however, cannot escape a just responsibility if they fail to take the initiative in organizing such a campaign.

X

THE PRESS AND THE COURTS*

HE administration of justice in this country, par

THE

ticularly in the criminal courts, is sorely in need of improvement; the principles of our jurisprudence should be restated and reformed, and the immense mass of our statute law requires condensation and systematization. Is the press aiding as it should in effecting these reforms? In a democracy the responsibility to the state of citizens acting in groups increases in proportion to their potentiality; and as the newspaper group constitutes the most powerful single agency in influencing public opinion, its duty to use its power for the public good is very clear. But the press cannot be reasonably expected to engage in general projects of reform, if from the business standpoint they are unprofitable, or, for some other substantial reason, inexpedient. With a clear recognition of the limitation thus imposed, can it yet be said that the betterment of the administration of justice and the reform of the law have received from the press of the country that attention which their vital importance demands?

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COURTS IN OUR SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT

A serious impairment of the integrity of our judicial system or the independence of our judges would prob

* Address delivered before the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on May 1, 1924. Reprinted from the American Law Review for July-August 1924, and from the Commercial Law League Journal for November and December 1924.

ably lead to a radical change in the political form of our government; and if our present institutions give us the largest measure of civil liberty consistent with stability, such a change would be a hazardous experiment. Theoretically, our courts administer justice to the rich and poor alike and protect the rights of the individual and the minority against the encroachment of the majority. But aside from this strictly judicial function, they have, under our written constitutions, a power which has a political aspect, that is, the power to declare state and federal statutes to be in contravention of the Constitution. In the great constitutional decisions of the past, political views of the highest courts have sometimes colored their decisions; but if such epoch-making judgments as those rendered by the Supreme Court during the lifetime of Marshall, were thus influenced, it may with truth be said that they have been a most important factor in enabling us to maintain the stability of our institutions; and also that they have remained the law of the land only because the people have not chosen to nullify them by amendment of the Constitution. It is largely through the stability created by decisions which have maintained the powers of government in a state of effective equilibrium that it has resulted that no radical change has been made in the framework of our government during a period of over 130 years, that not a single revolution has occurred, that we have withstood the strain of foreign wars and of the greatest internecine struggle recorded in history, that we have been able to govern a population which has grown from 3 to 110 million, and states which have increased from 13 to 48, and that our powers of government have been extended over a vastly increased territory here and abroad, and

over a gigantic development in agriculture and industry. I would be far from asserting that in either field of its activities our judicial system, either state or federal, has been perfect in operation. But whatever merit and effectiveness it has had would soon depart if the people should cease to have respect for the law and its administrators. Judges are human and courts are the creation of man. In a democracy like ours the administration of justice will be what the people make it, and it is in that connection that I wish to discuss the power for good or ill of the newspapers.

PRESS REPORTS OF COURT PROCEEDINGS

Are the newspapers doing what may fairly be expected of them in helping to produce confidence in the courts?

It will be said, and with much force, that this question cannot be answered without considering that the newspapers are primarily gatherers and publishers of news, and that it is chimerical to expect them, except incidentally, to constitute themselves reformers of the law or unofficial adjuncts of the courts. The press

maintains itself financially by the patronage of its subscribers and advertisers. To make a radical change in this condition would, of course, be impossible. But it is also true, as I have said, that newspapers through both their news columns and their editorial pages constitute the most potent single influence we have in shaping public sentiment. The day when the newspaper exercised power by the individuality of its editorial writers has long since passed; and it is now principally through the news columns that the press can exercise its influence. And how is it doing it?

We are a newspaper reading people. We are attracted by sensational civil or criminal trials, especially if they are dramatic or involve mystery. If we do not read about them the newspaper accounts are repeated to us. Judges, juries, witnesses, court attendants and hangers-on, live in the atmosphere thus created. The customary admonition to jurors not to read the newspapers is based upon an assumption that human nature cannot resist the impression created by press accounts. But in spite of such warnings what the newspapers say does leak to the judge and jury, and, in proportion as a case excites public interest, it affects their deliberations.

An intelligent forecast as to how a trial will result can seldom be made from the ordinary newspaper account. This is due not alone to inaccuracy in reports, but also to the undue accentuation of sensational, though irrelevant, evidence, to so-called "stories" padded with matters of more or less remote inference, to unworthy wrangling of counsel, or to equally irrelevant homilies of judges. Industrious reporters interview prospective witnesses and publish what they say. Their statements are without the sanction of an oath and are not subjected to the test of cross-examination. The publication of the names of witnesses entering the Grand Jury Room, with reportorial conjectures as to their statements, make a serious inroad upon the confidential character of the accusing body under our system of criminal procedure. A glaring case of the publication before indictment and before trial of so-called evidence occurred in the Ward case, which led to an inquiry and an abortive attempt to discipline counsel. In the Burch murder case in Los Angeles a newspaper reporter by eavesdropping methods, secured knowledge of what went on in the jury room.

« PreviousContinue »