means, of course, that he must give up some of the individual freedom which he previously enjoyed. He may be required to attend meetings under penalty of fine for failure to do so, even though both attendance and fine are highly inconvenient. He must pay dues. In some organizations he is required to follow certain lines of conduct. If the organization with which he has become affiliated has a worthy motive as its aim, he gains far more than he gives up. By sacrificing some personal freedom, he gains the benefits accruing from the whole organization. Each individual must give up some of his freedom in order to carry out the purpose of any organized effort. When a man receives the benefits of an orderly and organized society, he is under direct obligation to give up those things which are necessary to carry out this purpose. In order that a government constructed upon this theory may not go to extremes and crush out the rights and privileges of individuals, a constitution is formed to protect them. from the enactment of unwise legislation in times of public excitement and passion. Changes in both state and federal constitutions are made quite difficult for this reason. The Federal Constitution can be amended only when two-thirds of each branch of Congress vote for the submission of the amendment, and three-fourths of the states ratify it through their legislatures or conventions. Over 2,500 amendments to the Federal Constitution have been pro posed, yet only nineteen have been adopted. A strong and organized sentiment is necessary to change it. As Ames has said in his "Amendments to the Constitution," Volume II, page 301: "The real reason for the failure of those other amendments which have been called for repeatedly by the general public has been due to the insurmountable constitutional obstacles in the way. 'It would seem,' as a well-known American writer has truly said, 'that no impulse short of the impulse of self-preservation, no force less than the force of revolution, can nowadays be expected to move the cumbrous machinery in Article V.'" CHECKS AND BALANCES Our government has additional checks and balances to prevent the encroachment upon individual rights. The legislative, executive and judicial departments are separate and distinct. Our forefathers realized, however, that they must provide a means for changing practically any part of the organic law. The Declaration of Independence had guaranteed the right of instituting a new government in place of one which destroyed men's "inalienable rights" and "organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The Constitution provides for the necessary changes by means of laws and amendments. The only limitation placed upon amendments, applicable at present, is that no state shall be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without its consent. The state constitutions are based upon the same principle. Many of them adopted constitutions embodying the principles of the declaration. In some cases it was inserted literally; in others it was put in in a paraphrased form. PEOPLE THE SOURCE OF POWER Under our form of government the people, acting through representatives of their own choice, are the source of ultimate power. Once they have adopted an amend ment by legal methods, the courts may determine whether the procedure in the process was really in accordance with the Constitution and may interpret the meaning of the amendment. If it has been adopted in the prescribed manner, however, the courts must follow and not override it. In view of the advantages gained by membership in such a society, with such carefully safeguarded provisions for individual rights as well as the common welfare, there can be little excuse for an individual in a constitutional republic to refuse to obey laws enacted by legal processes of government. The minority may always have the right to make a change by increasing their number until it becomes a majority. The history of legislation in this country has shown that a real or alleged wrong can readily get a hearing; and that if it is a real grievance, it will be corrected. The abolition of slavery, the prohibition of intoxicants, the extension of suffrage to women and the many other pieces of social legislation all bear witness to the fact that a real grievance can be corrected. LESSON FROM HISTORY History demonstrates that those governments are strong which are supported by a citizenship which observes the laws. The government at Athens flourished as long as its citizens fulfilled this great Athenian oath: "We will never bring disgrace to this our city by any act of dishonesty or cowardice, nor ever desert our suffering comrades in their ranks. We will fight for the ideals and sacred things of the city. We will revere and obey the city's laws, and do our best to excite a like respect and reverence in those about us who are prone to annul them and set them at naught. We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public sense of civic. duty, and thus in all these ways we will transmit this city not less but better and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us." The decay of the Roman republic was due in a large measure to a lack of intelligent and energetic interest in civic affairs on the part of its citizens. If the people of the United States desire to prevent our government from a similar decline, they must maintain a feeling of individual responsibility for law observance. Every citizen may well take to heart the recent classic of American political literature, the American Creed, which concludes: "I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag and to defend it from all enemies." Inasmuch as protection to life is desirable, and security of property is necessary to public and individual welfare, the people of America must accept the obligation. of loyalty to the Constitution and obedience to laws. ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS AND VISIBILITY (THEIR USE IN THE TRIAL) By Gordon W. Chambers* You cannot, even though you have good eyes and the visibility is good, ordinarily recognize a person whom you have seen but once before if he is at a greater distance than eighty feet. If he is well known to you, you may recognize him at as great a distance as three hundred and thirty feet, and if a member of your family even as far as five hundred feet. Under the same conditions the white of the eyes can be seen at ninety feet and the eyes themselves at about two hundred and forty (240) feet. The slightest movement of the head, arms or legs are distinguishable at three hundred feet, larger movements at one thousand, but at about one thousand seven hundred and fifty (1,750) feet a human being appears only as an indefinite form, and at more than two thousand three hundred feet movements of the body cannot be detected. These tests were made by Dr. Schnecker *Lumpkin Law School, University of Georgia. of Munich, who is an authority on such matters, under conditions of broad daylight. Other conditions would, of course, reduce the visibility-almost to zero on a dark night or a very dense fog by day. The following cases will explain the importance that visibility and weather conditions play in many instances: Abraham Lincoln won a famous case, the Armstrong murder trial. Armstrong had been mixed up in a row on the night of August 29th, 1857, in a town near Springfield, Illinois. One of the participants in the row died apparently from a blow struck with some sharp instrument. Armstrong was accused of his death and Lincoln appeared as his attorney. Armstrong admitted having struck the man, he claimed though he used only his bare fist. But the principal witness against him, a man named Allen, declared positively that he had seen Armstrong strike the victim with a slung shot. On cross examination by On cross examination by Lincoln, Allen admitted that he was about one hundred and fifty feet away at the time, but declared that he could see plainly the act because there was a bright full moon directly over head. Lincoln made him state this repeatedly, then produced an almanac which showed that the moon, on the night in question, was barely in its first quarter and that it set at midnight. So that at the time of the fight the moon was so low in the sky that it was obscured by the surrounding trees and buildings. The time of the fight was 11 p. m. Armstrong's acquittal was thus secured. (Note: was proved that witness could not see.) The strength of light at noon on a bright day is equivalent to that of about ten thousand (10,000) "foot candles"; that is ten thousand candles one foot from the eye. Just before sunrise and just after sunset the light is figured as that of only ten "foot candles." Thirty or forty minutes earlier in the morning or later in the evening it is reduced to one-tenth of a "foot candle." for the twilight in our middle latitude is longer in summer than in winter. It is effected by clouds, too. Heavy clouds will shut off the light almost entirely, and very much shorten the period of "dusk." Some lawyers make the mistake of assuming that darkness comes immediately after sunset. But a weather observer may prove from his records just how much light there was at a specified time. He knows whether there was a moon and how high it was in the sky; whether there were clouds and whether there was snow on the ground. On a bright moonlight night when the ground is covered with snow identification is easy. There was a case in which a lawyer claimed that on a certain winter evening with heavy clouds in the sky, there was at forty-five minutes after sunset, considerable light entering a room through its only window, which faced the north. But Henry J. Cox, official weather bureau forecaster of Chicago, testified that under these conditions the light entering the room would be hardly appreciable. Mr. Cox also appeared as a witness for a defendant charged with highway robbery. The prosecuting attorneys claimed that the defendant had been seen and recognized and they also claimed that the visibility was good at the time of the crime. But Mr. Cox proved by his records that the robbery was committed on a dark, cloudy night, and also impunged the veracity of the state witnesses, who had claimed that the night was quite different from what the records showed. The man was acquitted and afterwards found to be really innocent. About twenty years ago a butcher named Marzen, was accused of having murdered a friend in order to secure possession of the man's money. It was claimed that Marzen concealed the body in a barn during the winter. It was found in a newmade grave in the spring following near by. The point raised would the body "have not" decomposed and attracted attention while lying in the barn loft. The The time of the year must be considered, prosecutor proved by the weather records that the temperature had been below zero most of the time and that the body was frozen until about the time of the removal. Marzen was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Another murder case in which weather testimony was admitted, was in the trial of Leutgert for killing his wife. The woman had disappeared and Leutgert claimed she had gone on a visit he knew not where. Now Leutgert was a Chicago sausage maker and had a number of vats in his factory and during the investigation two small bones and two rings were found in the vats. The state claimed he had killed his wife and had succeeded in destroying the body with the exception of the rings and two bones. The prosecution found two young girls who claimed to have seen Leutgert and his wife walking from his house to the factory on the evening of the alleged crime. They said they were several hundred feet from the couple and admitted that it was dusk, but claimed they could recognize the two. But the defense showed that the sky was covered by heavy low clouds, making the visibility poor. The jury on the first trial disagreed. On the second he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment; a compromise verdict. Although the weather records introduced might have helped Leutgert I believe him guilty. His wife never reappeared. Another interesting murder case in which weather evidence played an important part was of young Orpet in nineteen sixteen (1916 A. D.), charged with the murder of Miss Lambert. Orpet was a student at the University of Wisconsin and had an affair with Miss Lambert, who lived near his home, a suburb of Chicago. He had thrown her down for another girl. They met for the last time in a bit of woods in Lake Forest, and the girl died there from swallowing cyanide of potassium. The state contended that the poison was furnished by Orpet. The defense claimed suicide and that she received it from the laboratory of a school she attended. Orpet claimed he brought her a bottle of medicine to help her and in his fright over the tragedy he had thrown the bottle away and that it had lain under the snow until a month or two later, when it was found by investigators working in his interest. The weather records showed enough snow had fallen to hide the bottle and that the temperature was not low enough to freeze the liquid and thus break the bottle. Orpet was acquitted, although indirectly responsible. Mr. Cox was called in connection with a murder, in 1907. The accused had escaped to this country and there was a question of extraditing him to Russia for trial. Through the weather bureau at Washington Mr. Cox obtained the local weather reports from Russia. They showed that on the night of the crime there was bright moonlight with snow on the ground, so that the visibility was excellent. This evidence was introduced to show whether there had been sufficient light for the accusing witness to recognize the murderer as they claimed. The man was not sent back, however, the State Department at Washington deciding that the killing was part of a revolutionary uprising and that the prisoner was the prisoner was therefore a political refugee. Records of rainfall are often introduced as evidence. Here is one rather unusual case: During a heavy thunder storm at night a household was awakened by a burglar; and as the man rushed out of one of the rooms two members of the family saw him in the flashes of lightning and thought they recognized him as their coachman who with his family lived over the stable at some distance from the house. The police, summoned at once by telephone, were told the coachman was the guilty person. They went to the stable and arrested him, although the man was asleep, he so stated when they knocked. His wife corroborated his statement. At the trial he was positively identified as the burglar by his em ployers. The defense proved that an inch of rain fell during the hour of the burglar's visit; also that on his coachmanarrest soon after, all his clothes were found dry, his shoes polished and dry, by the police officer who arrested him. This seemed conclusive and he was acquitted. Another interesting case was an action brought against a young man to prove that he was the father of a child born to a young woman of his acquaintance. The weather on a certain night was an important factor in the case. The girl testified that the weather was fine and warm; but, unfortunately for her side, the records showed that the night in question was quite stormy with a cold heavy rain. Regardless of the merits of the suit otherwise the girl lost her case on this evidence. Perhaps she made a mistake in the date. In a certain divorce suit a detective employed by the husband swore that he saw his wife, lightly clad, at the window of another man's apartment, and that she raised the window and seemed to be looking down the street for somebody. It happened that on that particular day the temperature was down to fifteen degrees below zero. The record was introduced to show this; the presumption being that with such conditions the lightly clad woman and the open window were not in harmony. The records of the weather bureau are frequently and wisely-referred to before bringing actions in court, especially to fix the date of an accident or other occurrence. For instance, a person may have in mind a day of a big snow storm, with a strong wind, in the early part of January or the latter part of February; or a day of heavy rain; or one with fog a year or so before, perhaps almost as far back as the statute of limitations will permit suit. I know of several instances where the date of the alleged occurrence was settled upon, by the plaintiff in the weather office before suit was filed. Some of course do this in good faith, while others simply "fix" the case in advance. Suits are sometimes brought against a municipality for damage because of sewers backing up and flooding basements from heavy rains, thus injuring property. Under these conditions the city always tries to show that the rainfall was abnormal in amount, so that the sewer could not be expected to carry off the water. Several years ago a man sued a certain city for damage to goods in his basement; not because water backed up from the sewer, but because, as he claimed, the street was defective, allowing the water from a heavy rainfall to accumulate so that it ran down into his basement. A "weather man"-official forecaster, was called by the city. the city. His records disclosed that for more than a week before the date of the alleged damage there had been no rain or snow and that the temperature had been far below zero. No water could have been deposited in the street and if there had been it would have quickly frozen. The judge instructed the jury to give a verdict in favor of the city. Contractors are prone to blame the weather for delay in completing outside jobs, and the records are used to substantiate the claim of one side or the other to the controversy. It may be heavy gales, severe cold, continuous rains, or some other factor that is held responsible, often with good reason. At other times it is a mere subterfuge. In the fall of 1913, a pier and breakwater were being constructed near Hammond, Indiana. The contractor claimed he had been delayed by severe storms, especially during November, when the condition was aggravated by the formation of heavy ice. The records disclosed that ice practically never appears as early as November along the Indiana shore of Lake Michigan. Moreover, the month in question was one of the warmest Novembers on record, the temperature rising above freezing every day but one, with an average for the month of forty-seven (47) degrees, and a maximum of seventy-two degrees. The whole month |