Taft vs. Democrats: The 1908 Speech Nobody Remembers. History's Agenda's Historical Speech Series.

Another Item from History's Agenda's  Historical Speech Series. In 1908, William Howard Taft (September 15, 1857 to March 8, 1930) was the Secretary of War under President Theodore Roosevelt, when he received the Republican nomination for President. After delivering his acceptance speech in Cincinnati, he traveled to Virginia Hot Springs, arriving on the morning of August 1.

Walter H. Miller and George H. Werner of the Edison Recording Department were there to record Taft delivering some of his speeches. That evening, Miller and Werner recorded Taft delivering 12 speeches, each about 2 minutes long, which were released as Edison records. This speech, opposing a Democratic proposal for jury trial in cases of contempt of court, was released as Edison Record: 10005.

Taft was elected and served as President from 1909 to 1913. He was later appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1921 and served until 1930. As Chief Justice he wrote the opinion of the Court in Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925), holding that the President can pardon criminal contempt of court.

Transcript

Subpoenas And Defiant Witnesses

SPEAKER_00 0:15

Under the provision of the Democratic platform promising a jury trial in all cases of indirect content, a recalcitrant witness who refuses to obey a subpoena may insist on a jury trial before the court can determine that he received the subpoena.

Jurors Who Refuse To Serve

SPEAKER_00 0:31

A citizen summoned as a juror and refusing to obey the writ, when brought into court, must be tried by another jury to determine whether he got the

Extending The Rule To All Orders

SPEAKER_00 0:40

summons. Such a provision applies not alone to injunction, but to every order which the court issues against person.

Appeals Up To The Supreme Court

SPEAKER_00 0:47

A student may be tried in the court of first instance and carried to the court of appeals and thence to the Supreme Court.

Delay Before Rights Are Real

SPEAKER_00 0:54

Then, if the decree involves the defendant doing anything or not doing anything and he disobeys it, the plaintiff who has pursued his remedies in lawful course for years must, to secure his rights, undergo the uncertainties and the delays of a jury trial before he can enjoy that which is his right by the decision of the highest court of the

Power And Authority Of Courts

SPEAKER_00 1:14

land. I say without hesitation that such a change will greatly impair the indispensable power and authority of the court.

Enforcement Of Federal Statutes

SPEAKER_00 1:22

In securing to the public the benefits of the new statute enacted in the present administration, the ultimate instrumentality to be resorted to is the courts of the United States. If now their authority is thus to be weakened, how can we expect that such statutes will have efficient enforcement?

Who Really Benefits From The Change

SPEAKER_00 1:40

Its advocates seem to suppose that this change in some way will endure only to the benefit of the poor working man. As a matter of fact, the person who will secure chief advantage from it is the wealthy and unscrupulous defendant, able to employ astute and cunning counsel and anxious to avoid justice.

Rule Of Law Or Anarchy

SPEAKER_00 2:00

The maintenance of the authority of the court is essential unless we are prepared to embrace anarchy. Never in the history of the country has there been such an insidious attack upon the judicial system as the proposal to interject a jury trial between all orders of the court made after full hearing and the enforcement of such orders.