Then we find the following const.i.tutional provision: "_nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_."(65)

Of course the government at times must have property which may belong to a private person. The public must at times take property belonging to an individual. Property may be taken, even when the owner will not consent to it, when it is taken for public use. One man's property cannot be taken by the government and given to another person. Government buildings must be erected and land must be obtained for such purposes. The public must have railroads, and a railroad can only be built when land is obtained for what is called the right of way. Sometimes a railroad must run through lots or farms belonging to private owners. The higher right of the public to these conveniences, these necessities, requires that when necessary the private individual must give up his right of ownership to these higher public uses. But even for the Nation, or the State, or railway, or for any other public use, not one foot of land may be taken from the poorest man in the country unless he is first fully paid its value therefor. Usually, of course, the owner will sell his property for such purpose at a fair price, but, if he is stubborn and will not do so, or if a fair price cannot be agreed upon then the government of the State or of the Nation, or the agents of the State or of the Nation may take such property by first having its value fixed by a commission, or a jury, composed of the neighbors of the owner. Where the amount fixed by such commission or jury is not satisfactory to the owner of the property, he may appeal to the court and have a trial, usually a jury trial, in which he can bring his witnesses and prove the value of his property, so that he will finally receive its full, fair, just value.

By this const.i.tutional guaranty every person is well guarded in his ownership and possession of property. In countries existing before America not much attention was paid to the rights of property owners. If the king or emperor should demand possession of a certain piece of property the owner had little to say about it. He received his orders and obeyed them, because he was afraid of the power of the government. The government could pay or not as it pleased. But this period of wrong and injustice was ended, so far as the people of America were concerned, when the Const.i.tution became the final power in this land.

There are a few people in this country who seek to have private ownership of property abolished. No law taking away the right to own property can ever come into force in this country until the people by their votes change the Const.i.tution. The Const.i.tution stands guard over the farms, the homes, the money, and all forms of personal property. It guards the cottage of the widow with the same jealous care that it does the ten-story building of the bank. No person and no power can interfere with the right to acc.u.mulate property and to hold it, provided only it is honestly obtained.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. What are the three things that every man, woman, and child cherishes?

2. What does the Const.i.tution say about these three things?

3. What was the Bastile? The Tower of London?

4. Show how injustice was worked by confining people without due process of law.

5. What are some of the essentials of "due process of law"?

6. When can private property be taken by the government?

7. When the State wishes a piece of land, end the owner will not sell for a fair price, how is the matter adjusted?

8. What right for reconsideration has a person against whom a judgment has been rendered in a trial court?

9. How can the reasonable value of property be established or proven?

10. Suppose the President of the United States wished a certain piece of property upon which to build a summer home. Could the President secure the land? Give reasons.

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. What are some of the steps necessary to due process of law?

B. What would be the effect on people if life, liberty, or property could be taken without due process?

C. Discuss the process of condemning property.

D. Write a paper on the following:

Evils of the Bastile and the Tower of London

Why Military Courts Do Not Always Follow This Law

The Different Purposes For Which Property May Be Taken For Public Use

Why Ownership of Property Should Be Protected

XIV. CRIMINAL TRIALS

Accused Guaranteed A Speedy Public Trial By An Impartial Jury Of The Local District

I hope no one here this morning will ever be arrested for a crime of any kind, and yet, as I have already explained to you, the innocent are sometimes brought before the court charged with a grave offense. Therefore you should be interested in the investigation of the truth of any charge that may be made against you, whether by a private individual or by a public officer.

I have already explained to you that in all grave offenses when a person is charged with a crime, he cannot be brought before the court for trial until the grand jury has investigated the facts and until they have returned an indictment, or written charge, to the court. Until this is done, the court has no power to proceed.

But now suppose that you have been arrested, suppose that a grand jury has investigated the charge against you, has heard witnesses, and has returned an indictment. You are then brought up before the court, and the indictment is read to you. This indictment I will explain to you more fully later. When the indictment is read you are then required to say whether you are "guilty" or "not guilty". If you have committed the crime charged, it may be advisable to plead guilty and ask for the mercy of the court in the punishment which he may impose. Courts usually temper justice with mercy. Courts will usually impose a lighter sentence when a guilty person pleads "guilty" and avoids the delay and expense of a trial. But, if you are innocent, you will plead "not guilty", and then the government, through its officers, will get ready for trial. You may not be tried right away, as it usually takes some time to investigate the facts and get the witnesses into court. As I will hereafter explain, you will be ent.i.tled to an attorney when the time comes for your trial, when you will have a chance to hear the witnesses offered by the prosecution, introduce your own witnesses, and, under our present law, testify yourself, tell your own story.

If you will walk into a court some day you will see the judge and over at one side twelve chairs for the jury. When your case is called for trial the first thing will be to select the twelve men who will be the jury in your case. I am not going to give the manner of selection at this time.

This will be fully explained later. I wish now to impress upon you the fact that the Const.i.tution expressly guards your rights by providing that you shall be ent.i.tled to have your case tried, not before a judge, but by a jury composed of men from the ordinary walks of life, laborers, merchants, farmers, people of all cla.s.ses; men just like your fathers are.

They are called. They hold up their right hands and take an oath to try your case fairly and justly and to make a finding according to the evidence which is brought before them.

The Const.i.tution provides:

"_In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law._"(66)

_This is an absolute guaranty_-a right which is given to you, given to each of you, to every man, woman, and child, young or old, regardless of color or creed. A trial without a jury would be a violation of your const.i.tutional rights. Of course, there are a few minor offenses, misdemeanors, and violations of city ordinances, which are sometimes tried without a jury, but in all infamous crimes, for which life may be taken as punishment or for which a person may be sent to the penitentiary, every one is ent.i.tled to a trial before a jury.

Is not this a sacred right? Don't you think that it is wise to permit people to have their rights and wrongs determined by a body of plain, honest men? It removes any suggestion of the abuse of power by a person in a public position. It inspires confidence in those who are brought before the court for trial. If we cannot obtain justice before such a body of men, how can justice be obtained in this world?

I have already told you that in this country the people are not only the makers of the law but the enforcers of the law. It is in these jury trials where the people enforce the law.

Of course, the hearing before the jury is held in court. The judge presides. He directs the proceedings of the trial, sees that it is conducted in an orderly way, endeavors to prevent any falsehoods from getting before the jury, keeps away from the jury any hearsay or gossip, or expressions of prejudice, or other matters not founded on absolute knowledge and truth. But the jurors are the sole judges of what the truth is, and, when the case is closed, when the evidence has all been introduced and the attorneys have made their arguments and pleas, the members of the jury retire to a private room by themselves. There they discuss the evidence, come to some conclusion, make a finding of "guilty"

or "not guilty", and bring in their finding in the form of a verdict.

Have you also observed that the const.i.tutional protection of your liberty not only provides for a jury trial, but also provides that it shall be a "speedy" trial. That is, one charged with a crime cannot without his consent, be locked up for weeks and months and years, as has often occurred in other parts of the world. He is ent.i.tled to be tried just as soon as the case can be prepared for trial, in justice to both sides.

Cases are often postponed for many months, but only by consent of the accused. A case not tried at the second term of court will usually be dismissed except when the defendant consents to the delay.

The Const.i.tution also provides that it must be a public trial. Oh! how many men in the long ago have been tried and condemned in private, where only a few enemies were present, where one's friends and neighbors could not hear the charges or the evidence. In this country the doors of the court room must be open. Any one has a right to enter and listen to the proceedings. The public has a right to know what is being charged against the humblest citizen, and what the proceedings against him are. Thus is justice guarded.

Then the Const.i.tution provides that the trial shall be before "_an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed_." This is important. We are not to be sent away among strangers to be tried. That is what they used to do long ago. That is one of the things which our forefathers complained of most bitterly. In the Declaration of Independence the colonies declared:

"He (the King of Great Britain) has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our const.i.tution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his a.s.sent to their acts of pretended legislation ... for depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury ... for transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses."

When the Const.i.tution was adopted the people made up their minds that nothing of that kind should ever occur again in free America. They were so careful that they went so far as to provide that the district where a trial shall be held "_shall have been previously ascertained by law_".

That is to say, that the place of trial, the county or district where it shall be held, must be fixed by law before the crime is committed. The courts or the legislature of any State cannot, after a crime is committed, pa.s.s a law providing that such a crime shall be tried in a district then to be named. The law must fix this in advance of the commission of any offense. For instance, without such a const.i.tutional provision, a person who committed a crime in the State of New York might be taken to California to be tried. This would not be American justice. The accused would have the right to point to the Const.i.tution of his country and demand that he should be tried in New York, and any court which would not grant this right would not only violate the oath which every judge takes before he undertakes to perform the duties of such office, but his unlawful conduct would perhaps result in his impeachment. The proceedings would be reversed by a higher court, and the party would be granted a new trial at a place and in accordance with his const.i.tutional privileges.

Isn't it wonderful how the little details which may affect one's liberty were so carefully considered away back there when they were planning the Nation and establishing the rules which would guard the rights of the people?

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. Why should all of us be interested in a trial?