American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1822-06-21

there Certainly is curious Inconsistency 10 isylnc
them under the obligation OF an oath, and then obi
gng them to violate it or perish: but it is an evil
necessarily growing out of the first principle of this
form of trial. Unanimity is requisite; and there
must be an end of litigation brought about 10 some
way
The error lies in supposing the trial by Jury to b.
exclusively trial by mind, whereas the very prin.
ciples which govern it, shew that ii is only giving
the parties chance of having their cases tried BY
judgement OF their peers settled, the question mus,
be in some way, whenever the isue has been dulv
submitted to the constitutional tribunal Hune,r
or cold, not conviction, may have induced the large
or,y Of the twelve TO SANCTION the verdict renr.
ned yet il would be in vain for them to acknowl-
edge to the court that the verdict is Contrary 10
their opinion that they have yielded to suffering
and necessity in giving it. This would be no ground
for setting it aside If they still adhere to the finding
rather than return to the Jury ROOM
/ Further EDWARDS the Judge remarks -
'The decision in this case was m5st certqinlvruo5
by fofi but what course was this jury to pursue,
/ They reported their disagreement, special yerdc
was proposed on the other side, but the party now
making this motion insisted on verdict The
weather vas progressively cold, and the appearance
OF every member OF the jury, when they returned
into court, pleaded strongly their excuse If ever
there were an instance in which the law would ex
lcuse an appeal ito him who governs the lot or
mode o doing it that could be pronounced unex-
ceptonaoe, this case furnished both There was
nothing of indecent disregard exhibited 10 The sn
llemnlty OF the duty they were performing, but an
impartial appeal TO the only method they could
imagine OF producing unanimity. Nations have
appealed to the very same mode Of deciding their
differences and acquired the reputation Of candor
and guod sense.
j Perhaps this magistrate has often and often de.
clared to the world the inestmable blessings result
Inrg from uial by jury. When our fellow citizens
come to the full enjoyment OF those benefits, when
twelve OF their friends are called upon under The
solemnlty oil an oath TO decide according to Law &,
TO evidence, they meet together, draw lots or rattle
a dice box, and this decision thus given, satisfies
their consciences, and is justified if not applauded
10y the presiding magistrate. We shall not in the
present case, stop TO notice the judicial blasphemy
contained in this expression if ever there were an
instance IN which the law would excuse an appeal
TO him who governs the lot, or a mode of doing it,
that could be pronounced unexceptonable, this case
admits oil both-we will not stop to notice the i'm.
pety CT man appealing to his creator to direct his
Judgment, and throwing the dice from the box that
IS to determIneit; but we will simply ask hat in
such case, becomes ofthe oath administered; Of
their obligation to decide according to evidence, and
is pack OF cards to be admitted as substitute for
ooth The magistrate gravely informs US from the
seat OF Justice, that the weather oppressiyey
cold' That the appearance of every member Of the
Jury pleaded strongly in his excuse, that there was
nothing OF indecent disregard, exhibited to the
solemnlties OF the duty they were performing they
drew lots with all possible gravity, and brought in
Their verdict accordingly. Property, it is true was
mere the only thing in issue between the parties;
put II the reasoning of the Judge is correct we do
not see why life may not under the like obligation Of
an oath, De gambled away in the same manner and
inc question OF Innocence or guilt, freedom or the
Ipiooet be committed to the decision of dice, and
'lnecated from the bench by the presiding magis
l'rate' We are not strangers to the cold bafbarity
OF the English law, by which man might lawfully
oe starved into perjury and violate the obligations
lot his conscience but we had thought that this
precedent was now cited only to be despsed and dis
regarded--that if the Jury could not agree the
court resumed the custody OF the papers, and con.
tinued the case for further argument. The Judge
on The other hand informs US, that this starvation
verdict, IS IAN evil necessarily growing OUT Of the
nrst principle OF this form Of tia that unanmity
u requisite, and there must be an end of litigation
brought about in some way" What course asks
'ne Juuge, was the jury to pr sue One would
suppose the plain answer to this question, would
nave oeen 10 report to the court, that they could not
agree. but II starvatloD--if heat or cold--if draw
ing io's are necessary to enforce this unanimous ae-
quescence OF the jury into law and evidence, it FUR
hsies me strongest possible cause for aboshing the
.aial ny Jury altogether-ift was only to save to
'ne member the guilt Of violating his oath, and
suoIecuhg himself to the pains and penalties OF
CONVICTION, on an indictment for perjury.