SOME MODERN TENDENCIES the gates, remains burnishing shields and whetting swords that are never to leave the armory. By all means, let us have men of action; let us know how to apply our prin ciples, but. in a utilitarian age, let us not forget that as in some other sciences so in law, we may gain light and strength and inspiration from the study of truth in the abstract — truth under the pure light of heaven, untinged by the changeful hues of conflicting human interests and unclimmed by the shadows of human fault and frailty. From the foundation of the world a por tion of the race has been afraid of develop ment. Good old John Evelyn bewailed the fact that London had a population of 300,000, "far beyond what any City should ever have." Don't have railways, they'll kill the cattle. The departmental store will ruin the small trader. Combination in capital will oppress the consumer. Com bination in labor will paralyze manufactures. We may pass our laws and here and there, to some extent, control the course of events but the world progresses very much in its own way. There are a thousand moral and social tinkers for one real reformer. What an age we live in! The marvels of yesterday are the commonplace of to-day. What will the ocean liner look like — even the new four and a half day boats — when the air ships fly through space. The telegraph and the telephone are already an old story, and perchance wireless telegraphy will seem very crude indeed, when with some intel lectual heliograph thought is flashed over seas and continents. Where can we set marks or bounds? Is so stable and dig nified a thing as the administration of justice affected by the weird transcenden talism of the times? At Portland, a few months ago, I began to say something about sensationalism in the administration of justice, but when I realized that the hour hand was on its way around to three o'clock in the morning and that weary nature was sinking into a soporiferous if not a judicial calm, in which it would be difficult to realize
173
that such a thing as sensationalism existed in the world at all, I abandoned the theme. If I return to it now for a moment it is only to draw your attention to a difficulty without suggesting any way out of it. If we abolish the up-to-date-sensational trial, what would the world do for entertainment? A sensational crime, a formal arrest, arraign ments and postponements, first juror sworn in the springtime, last juror toward autumn, all the arts of pleading, the refinement of cleverness in examination and cross-exami nation, the sworn testimony of a multitude of witnesses presenting the only example in the universe of truth contradicting truth, auroral displays of reason and senti ment, of logic and rhetoric, a disagreement of the jury, or if a conviction, appeal after appeal — behold the majesty of the law of which Crabbe wrote: '• As long as amunition can be found, Its lightning flashes and its thunders sound."
In speaking of sensationalism I have certainly no particular trials in mind. I am not suggesting that the Dreyfus trial was too long or too often, or that any particular trials in England or in this country should have been abbreviated, but — applying the simple but stern twentieth century test — are these great sensational trials worth what they cost? It will be said that the administration of justice is too sacred a thing to suffer the mention of cost in con nection with it and that no expenditure is too great in order that right may be done. Very .true, but the admixture of sensationalism with the administration of justice does not raise the tone or quality of justice; it does not elevate the standards of advocacy, nor does it enhance the general respect for law. Does it not also leave us with the uneasy reflection that the chances of the rich and the poor before the law are after all not quite so equal as we have com placently believed? The sensational aspect of many modern trials is due in a measure to the publicity
