Official proceedings of the annual meeting: 1923

JUSTICE AND THE IMMIGRANT-CLAGHORN

I79

with their own underofficials and with unofficial hangers-on of the court, to promote
schemes of exploitation by which immigrants peculiarly are victimized. In these courts
there is only too little trouble from the law's delay, it works only too quickly to extract
money from immigrant pockets.
In larger places where we find the lower courts divided into separate civil and criminal branches, we find that in the civil courts the worst difficulties are those of delay
and cost, and these are receiving attention in the general movement for the reform of
legal procedure.
In the lower criminal courts, however, there is especial trouble for the immigrant.
In many of them he finds political influence plainly at work. And he is told by
hangers-on of the court, and even by the lower officials, that "influence" and bribery
are the regular means of getting a favorable decision. This he is all the more ready to
believe if he comes from a country where bribery actually is the way to get favorable
decisions.
The justice himself, in such a court, may be of the highest integrity, but he may
also feel himself so far removed from the immigrant client that he will not concern himself with trying to clear away the immigrant's misunderstanding. The judge may also,
in fact, not lend himself to the kind of grafting the immigrant client is taught to think
he is carrying on, but he may be playing a larger political game in which the immigrant
client is merely a pawn.
In the justice court almost entirely, and in the police court only too often, there is
a lack of the special means needed to get the non-English-speaking immigrant in touch
with what is going on, to enable him to present his own case properly, to understand
what is being said and done by the court; that is, interpretation. Imagine any one of
ourselves appearing before a Russian court, and trying to explain our case without a
knowledge of their language, and they without a knowledge of ours! We can readily
see at what a disadvantage we should be. The utmost clearness of understanding on
the part of the court is needed, to grasp not only the bare facts in a case, but to clear
away the prepossession against the stranger, his habits and manners, that is natural
to anyone faced with some one unfamiliar to him. The justice court is too small to
afford the services of paid official interpreters. The unofficial interpreter brought by
the client may be almost as ignorant as the client, and he may have an axe of his own to
grind, and put the client at a disadvantage. The police court in the larger cities is
equipped with interpreter service, but it is too often inadequate. Sometimes such
courts do not pay enough to secure able persons. Because of the low pay such interpreters are often tempted to form lucrative alliances with grafters about the court for
the swindling of immigrants.
In the better courts, where interpreters are fairly well paid, and are held to a
standard of efficiency through a civil service examination, some of the languages needed
will not be represented. A difficulty not always recognized is that while the interpreter
may speak a language well enough, a difference of racial or political tradition from that
of the client will make him unsympathetic and even hostile. For instance, an Armenian
speaking the Turkish language, who is used to interpret for Turkish clients, may be so
ingrained with racial hostility that he cannot help making an unfavorable showing for
the Turk. In many cases there is more hostility between peoples who are able to
speak the same language than between peoples who know nothing of each other's languages, because the common language has been learned in the course of enforced and
unpleasant association, in which each people has come to fear and hate the other.