Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/56

 The Green Bag

46

public trial, and is the Uniform Divorce Law defective in this respect? We frequently hear the argument that the publication of the repugnant details of divorce cases has a debasing effect upon the public mind; and it is sometimes

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws,

an important principle will have re ceived additional inﬂuential support, and the grave defect of the New York law will have become even less contro vertible.

argued, on the other hand, that such

publicity is desirable in the interest of public morals, to cover with shame loss

of respect for the marriage tie.

THE VENERABLE TRADITION OF THE RIOT ACT

But

probably it would be possible to abridge

the privileges of the press in reporting such proceedings, if it were deemed ad visable for the protection of public morals, and the real question is not

HE curious extremes to which the conservative tenacity of their

institutions may sometimes be carried by Englishmen is illustrated by an in cident which recently occurred in South

whether publicity is or is not desirable.

wark.

It is rather whether the forms of a public trial need to be retained to pro tect the rights of the parties and the in

ing to a New Jersey lawyer who sends us a newspaper clipping received from a friend in England :—

terests of the community. Secret trials are utterly at variance with the spirit of American institutions. While the right of individuals to settle

their private controversies by the ar bitrament of any person who may be acceptable to them may be conceded, the process of the court should not issue

without full

opportunity for

public

knowledge as to where, how, and why

it is issued.

In an Anglo-Saxon com

munity, it is repugnant to popular notions of justice that the machinery by which it is maintained be hidden, under

any circumstances, from public view.

It is certainly no argument for secrecy to-day that the parties desire it, or that the facts are unﬁt for publication. Such secrecy offers too strong a temptation for collusion, and too great a risk of the

We are indebted for the follow

Sir Forrest Fulton, K. C., adds to his oﬁioe of Recorder of London that of Steward of the City Manors in Southwark, and in that latter capacity he was called upon with all solem nity to constitute and preside over the three Courts Leet. A jury having responded, it fell to the Prothonotary (Mr. W. Hayes), a lesser

official, to call, "All persons having anything to do with this court draw near and give your attention, on pain of amerciament." There after the faithful twelve took a fearsome mediaeval oath swearing to spare no one for love, favor, fear, or affection, and to present no one through hatred, malice, or illwill, the

King's counsel to keep, and not disclose the same. Next, the Riot Act was read, due warning being given that tumultuous persons disturbing the proceedings—there were none —"shall be adjudged felons without beneﬁt of clergy, and shall suffer death as in the case of felons without beneﬁt of clergy." But there was nothing to be done, even by the

divorce laws of England will deal spe

"aﬁearers" whom the Court appointed, and Sir Forrest Fulton having remarked upon the laudable veneration with which the City main tained its ancient institutions and customs, the jury dispersed—not, however, before they had laid proper claim to their right to appoint ale-conners and ﬂesh-tasters, which was granted. ‘

cially with the question of the publicity of divorce proceedings. If their report concurs with the attitude of our own

“The fearsome mediaaval oath," com ments our friend in Newark, “is the usual oath administered to grand jury

maladministration ciety wishes to see We are glad to Commission which

of laws which so respected. see that the Royal is to consider the