Law Day
I always thought it was funny that Law Day in the United States is celebrated on May 1, the same day that the rest of the world celebrates International Workers Day - an international remembrance directly caused by the workings of the American Legal System. I do not know if this is a sarcastic joke by someone in the Eisenhower Administration, is a result of ignorance, or was intentional. However, as the esteemed members of the Bar gather on May 1 to congratulate themselves on the majesty of the law and their profession, in these times in which even parochial celebrations are suppose to be cross-cultural, diverse, and whatever, the esteemed members of the Bar should give some thought to the rest of the world's celebration on this our Law Day - especially its humorous aspects in order to lighten up a little.
May 1st for a large portion of the world is a commemoration of the workers who were arrested and subsequently executed as a result of the Haymarket Riot of 1886 in my great hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Though the riot occurred on May 4, it was a continuation of labor rallies and strikes that had begun on May 1. During those four days, workers were demonstrating and striking for the absurd, politically incorrect demand of a mandatory eight hour workday. Having enough of this threat to Western Civilization, on 3 May the legal system sent in armed police to re-establish law and order resulting in the death of four workers. When armed police went to break-up another rally on May 4, someone in the crowd had the audacity to fight back and threw a bomb at the police line resulting in the death of Police Officer Mathias J. Degan. Seven men were arrested and tried for conspiracy in his murder. (Though four workers and six other policemen were killed in the riot, these deaths were caused by police "friendly fire" shooting in the dark at anything moving - an embarrassing fact not warranting public inquiry).
Since the prosecution could not offer evidence as to who threw the bomb nor connecting any defendant with the bomber, the theory of prosecution was that the defendants had published anarchist views advocating the start of the strikes and rallies that created the opportunity for the unknown bomber's acts and thus they were equally liable for the murder as co-conspirators. The trial judge using his Common Law powers used this theory of prosecution as a guide for his evidentiary rulings. My favorite part is Defense Counsel William Foster's closing argument. Having abandoned all hope as he entered the Inferno of closing argument (a feeling with which I am too familiar), he said to the jury:
If these men are to be tried . . . for advocating doctrines opposed to ideas of propriety, there is no use for me to argue the case. Let the sheriff go and erect a scaffold; let him bring eight ropes with dangling nooses at the end; let him pass them around the necks of these eight men; and let us stop this farce now.
That is what happened. All were convicted. Four of the men were hung, one committed suicide in prison, two had their sentences commuted to life. All this occurred after of course the Court of Appeals did its job of ignoring substantive error to bend over backwards to distort the law and the facts to find a way to affirm the judgment.
Unfortunately for the legal system of the 19th Century, the death penalty has one unfortunate consequence that executive tyrants have long ago learned to try to avoid, it creates martyrs. And thus we have the worldwide celebration of May Day.
As the esteemed members of the Bar gather on 1 May to congratulate themselves on a job well done, I ask that we give some thought to what the rest of the world is celebrating and ask if the modern American legal system is really any different from what it was 150 years ago and of other systems of the past 2000 years or have just the nature of the injustices it protects changed? Thanks to the protections of the law, in 2008 just as in 1886: 1% of this country's population still owns 30% to 40% of its wealth and power; 20% owns 80% to 90% thus leaving the remaining 80% to share the remaining 10% of wealth and power. Unfortunately, there are no obvious martyrs to such injustice. As the Bar celebrates its diversity of people of color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and whatever, do you really have any diversity of ideas or is it still governed by "ideas of propriety" instead of ideas of substance? Now as then, would it be just as willing to kill in cold blood four workers for daring to challenge its authority? My answer is "yes" to the latter; and, "propriety" rules, Dudes! - And Dudettes of course!