Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/237

 212

THE GREEN BAG

powers and functions essentially judicial in their character, but to take away from citi zens a legal right which they had hereto fore enjoyed and which could be enforced by them in the courts and also to deny to them the right to have their cases heard be fore a jury. It is only necessary to clearly understand the provisions of this act to see that they are in direct conflict with several of the pro visions of the Constitution of the state. Thus Art. 5, of the Declaration of Rights, assures to the people the right of a trial by jury. Knee v. City Pass. Ry. 87 Md. 624, Art. 19 gives to every one for injury done to him in his person or property, a remedy by the course of the law of the land. Yet both of these guarantees are completely

ignored by the act in question. Without prolonging the matter, it is so clearly evi dent that the act in question is framed in total disregard of the provisions of the Con stitution that the act must be declared void, and the demurrer sustained." From this decision no appeal was taken, although the act is still in force and the codifier of our laws has not put it in the Code recently published, doubtless be cause of the opinion just mentioned. Thus it may be said that both parties to the liti gation here are satisfied with things as they now stand, and in my opinion, it will require considerable discussion before a radical change is made in our civil procedure. BALTIMORE, MD., March, 1906.

MR. QUACKEKBUSII

THE remedies for the abuses of personal injury litigation are publicity and prosecution. If the public be educated concerning the extent to which the truth is almost universally disregarded daily in the courts in personal injury cases, it will not be long before an aroused public will demand protection from this growing menace to property. So common has perjury become that jurors are inclined almost to applaud a clever lie well told. The judges are coming to look with indifference upon this crime. If they were not, there would be at least one witness committed for perjury every day by every judge engaged in the trial of such cases. In private conversation, the preva lence of perjury is denounced by the judges, but it is only in the most flagrant case that a judge will, upon his own motion, issue a warrant for perjury in his own court. He will hesitate even to grant an application by one of the parties. Now this condition of 'things is not the fault of the judges so much as it is the fault of the public generally. If the judges felt that the public expected them to be keen to protect the courts from imposition, they would act without hesita tion. The judicial branch of government

reflects the prevailing public opinion, per haps unconsciously, but, nevertheless, as surely as any other. And the same propo sition holds true concerning prosecuting officers. Their principal concern seems to be with the prosecution of crimes against property and those involving personal vio lence. The crimes of perjury, subornation of perjury, champerty, and maintenance seem to be disregarded. The writer remem bers only three convictions for periury during the last fifteen years in the largest county outside of New York City in the state of New York. If, as has been said, all the powers of government have for their ultimate purpose the getting of twelve honest men in the jury box, how important it is that the twelve honest men shall have some assurance that they will not be made to waste their time listening to rank perjury in case after case. It would seem as if the oath of a witness has lost all religious sanction except in rare instances. .It is necessary, therefore, that the positive law should be vigorously enforced if the courts are again to be places where men fear to falsify. Until recently, the public has been un