Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/121

 98

that this did not compel him to give evidence against himself. We agree with the " New York Law Jour nal," that "there is something to be said on the other side," but we think the holding is right, be cause it did not compel the prisoner to do or to dis close anything that is unusual or usually concealed, like exposing an arm to show tattoo marks or fitting a foot into a shoe or a mould of a track.

Prize Fighting.— We have observed, and ex pressed the observation, that judicial decisions seem to be much influenced by the financial or other in terests of the particular locality in the particular subject of the litigation. Thus the Maine courts sedulously protect ownership in ice; those of Penn sylvania allow much latitude to the smoke of ironfurnaces although it amounts to a nuisance; English courts seem to allow fox-hunters to ride rough-shod over other people's lands in chase of the noxious and dangerous fox; Texas courts frequently regard a mule as worth more than a man; and now the su preme court of Louisiana has thrown its protection about the great New Orleans industry of prize-fight ing. In State v. Olympic Club (46 La. Ann.), 24 Lawyers' Rep. Ann. 452, it was held as follows : "I. A criminal statute denouncing what is commonly called prize-fighting to be a misdemeanor, or punishable by fine or imprisonment, coupled with a proviso that the provisions of the act shall not apply to exhibitions and glove contests between human beings, which may take place within the rooms of regularly chartered athletic clubs, presents a question of fact to be determined by the court or jury as to whether any given contest or series of contests come within the designation of the statute as a prize fight or within the scope and meaning of the proviso as a glove contest. "2. As the State of Louisiana is in court seeking the forfeiture of the defendant's charter on the ground" that the corporation has committed acts ultra vires of its charter, and is met with the provisions of an act of her own legis lature which, in terms, authorizes just such contests as the witnesses describe the club contests to have been, this court will be excused for declining to disturb a finding of a jury in favor of the defendant on a question of fact. "3. Conceding such contests to be violative of good morals and of a sound public policy, the remedy comes plainly within the prerogative of the legislative department of the government, which alone can be looked to for relief.'' We take it that this statute does (tot authorize a substantial prize-fight even under the, guise of "a glove contesjf" in the rooms of an "'athletic club." We take it' als?!^ that[ tfe"se " glove contests" are

dangerous. We know they have frequently re sulted in death. But at all events a blow that renders a man insensible for several minutes must be dangerous. In spite of the apparent doubt of the court in this case, we have no doubt that these con tests are generally bloody. If they are not, the cul tured gentlemen who attend them complain loudlv and want their money back. The following extract from the opinion in question makes us ashamed ot some lawyers : "The next witness whose testimony has attracted our notice is a prominent lawyer, who furnishes a like descrip tion of the Olympic contests as the first witness did. The men who participated in those contests were men of scien tific training, almost without an exception. He does not think any of the contestants were hurt very much. He saw one or two of them bleeding from the nose or mouth, and possibly saw one bleeding from the ear. States that he witnessed the Sullivan-Kilrain fight in Mississippi. The next witness is a leading lawyer of the New Orleans bar. He states that he witnessed several of the Olympic Club cont<jsts, and instances the Corbett-Sullivan contest, which he describes much in the same manner as other witnesses have done. That he saw nothing that was objectionable or brutal in that contest. He testifies — as other witnesses had done — that the assemblage of people who witnessed these contests was orderly and well-behaved; or, as the first witness states, these assemblages of people, in point of personal respectability and behavior, were above the average of ordinary political assemblages. This witness is a mem ber of the school!>oard, and a gentleman of first respecta bility. The next witness is also a prominent city lawyer of high reputation and a man of affairs. He states that he has witnessed quite a number of the Olympic Club contests, and his description of them, and the manner in which they were conducted, is quite the same as that of other witnesses whose testimony we have commented on. 1 lis description of the effect of these contests upon the contestants physi cally is unique : ' Q. The exhibitions which you have de scribed, were they at any time bloody, or was blood shed during any of those contests? A. Well, when two men get opposite to each other and begin boxing, unless onehas a pretty tough nose, there is going to be a bloody nose. I have had a bloody nose myself twenty times when I was taking boxing lessons,' etc. With regard to the cruelty or brutality of the Olympic contests, this witness's statement is also quite unique : ' Q. Was there anything brutal or inhuman about it? A. In my judgment, no, sir. As com pared with that popular game nowadays known as football, which I think the American people have gone crazy about, the contests that I have seen at the Olympic Club are supe rior in ever)' respect, and in point of humanity as appealing to the;esthetic senses.'" We may subscribe to the comparison made by the last witness in respect to foot-ball, if not in respect to political meetings; but still we may be pardoned for believing that courts ought to lean toward dis countenancing these plainly brutal affairs.