[untitled] [excerpt]

     The constitution of the United States guarantees that “no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” That document also declares that—

     In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial, and by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

     If a Guiteau or a Czolgosz murders a President of the United States, the courts assure him the protection set forth in these clauses of the constitution. The judge is careful to know that the accusation is in legal form. With paternal care the judge examines every member of the jury, to see that none are prejudiced against Czolgosz; the judge sees that the trial is speedy and public; the judge sees that Czolgosz is not condemned without being confronted with the witnesses against him; the judge uses compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; the judge selects the most able [496][497] counsel procurable to defend Czolgosz. But what would the judge do if the prisoner had been accused by his former master of “speaking” to or “persuading” other men to not take his place as a striker? What would the judge do if the prisoner had been accused of “assembling” with his fellows? The judge would deny the servant every right and privilege he so gladly accorded Czolgosz! The judge would deny the servant a jury of any kind, much less an impartial jury; the judge would deny the victim the right to meet his accusers or to be confronted with the witnesses against him; the judge would not issue compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; the judge would not select any counsel to defend the prisoner, much less select able counsel; the judge would condemn the workingman to imprisonment; would deprive him of his liberty, without “due process of law;” without “trial by jury.”
     The workingmen now demand that Congress shall intercede in this contest between the servant class on the one side and the judges and master class on the other. Workingmen believe that the courts have been prostituted by the corporations. Workingmen believe that they have had ample evidence that the courts are being used by the corporations to win their contests with their employees. Workingmen now demand that a striker shall have as many rights before the courts as a Guiteau or a Czolgosz. They demand that the rights guaranteed them by the National Constitution shall be no longer taken from them by the judges.