Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

Mr xx A MILITANT WEEKLY. 1 THE REASON COMPANY nfWC Vl? . o *. nn , SINGLE COPY E LAMAR PARKER, Hl Express Builditiß. ONE YEAR SI.OO. FIVE CENTS. DAVID P. DYER. No. 4. WANTED-OLD FASHIONED MINISTERS. Rev. Dr. AV. N. Ainsworth’s staunchest friends and supporters must find it a perplexing task to name a basis upon which it is possible to premise any sort of justification of that gentlemen’s acrid and unsparing denunciation of the City Court jury which sat last week on certain cases of alleged viola tions of the State prohibition law. One need not be a champion of the system in vogue of choosing jur ors in this state nor a defender of the probity of any particular juryman or set of jurymen, to perceive the unseemliness of the Minister’s excoriation which he gave out for publication. Os course any citizen may question the soundness or justice,of a verdict in any case and remain within his rights, but this prerogative does not grant him the privilege of unbridled and unlicennsed personal abuse addressed to any part of a jury under any conceivable circumstances liable to arise. Certainly no citizen has a right to, and without gross impro priety can, hurl invectives at the heads of twelve men sitting upon a case in court simply because some of these men, after hearing the evidence, fail to reach a conclusion in accord with an opinion, formed before the trial began, by a critic on the outside. Indeed it is a mooted question if a part of Dr. Ainsworth’s utterances, under a strict construction by the presiding judge, does not bring the former within the purview of proceedings for contempt of court. Os course such proceedings are not here ad vocated, and it is altogether likely that Dr. Ains worth’s status as a clergyman would, in any event, shield him from the consequences which one not pos sessing this immunity might legally suffer for too violent criticism of an institution of justice. The Minister directly attacked only a part of the jury, and not the court, itself; but an intimation of re missness on the part of the latter might reasonably be imputed to two paragraphs of Dr. Ainsworth’s expression, in as much as it is as UNBELIEVABLE THAT “LUNATICS OR CRIMINALS” IIAVE EN TREE TO THE CITY COURT JURY BOX as it would be impossible for such men to effect an en trance therein without the knowledge of the court officers. The language in point is quoted as follows: Savannah, Ga.. May 16, 1908 By DAVID P. DYER. “One of two things must be true. Either the men who voted for these acquittals were too stupid to know evidence when presented, or they did not hesitate to perjure themselves. “EITHER LUNATICS OR CRIMINALS TN A JURY BOX IMPERIL EVERY INTEREST OF CIVILIZED SOCIETY.” The Reason has not investigated the private lives of the jurors who are the object of Dr. Ains worth's vitriolic assault, nor is there any evidence shown that the character and standing of any of the twelve men were inquired into prior to the publica tion of the Minister’s effusion. This paper is there fore, no better fortified by right to vouch for the in tegrity of these men, in the absence of necessary information, than was their assailant under a like condition, to denounce them. So, naturally, their defense as individuals is not undertaken. It should be understood that The Reason does not assume the position that any miscarriage of jus tice is excusable or defendable. THIS PAPER WILL BE FOUND AMONG THE FIRST TO VIS IT CENSURE UPON ALL PERSONS FAILING IN THEIR DUTIES AS CITIZENS OR OFFICERS OF THE LAW WHENEVER THERE IS POSITIVE AND CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF DERELIC TION OR CULPABILITY. But it contends that in temperate and illconsidered speech, especially when emanating from an intelligent and cultured source, is far more potent for evil consequences than would be intemperate indulgence in strong drink by the same individual and certainly less excuse may be found for a bitter and uncharitable tongue than for an ungovernable appetite or frail will-power. We may worthily be liberal in characterizing the act of the rude, the uncultured and the ignorant man, or the wordly-minded man who is neither of these, when he employs immoderate language to emphasize his views, or resorts to acrimony and epi thet to goad his adversary into physical encounter, standing the while equipped with muscle or weapon, and with a willingness to take from as he will give to the man on equal ground with himself. On the other hand, to what altitude shall we exalt the man of birth and breeding, the collegian of Vol. 1.