Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1844-03-14
Remarks of Mr.. Mcpherson
ON TIE JURY BILL.

~ .lS rouse OF Deiegates, JANUARY, 1874.
Mr. McPHERsoN WAS opposed to tie
bill under consideration, which had for
ITS object an entire change Of the present
Jury System "a system long established,
and approved by the great body of the
people of Virginia. HI, was constrain-
ed to resist all innovations which might
be attempted in the present Jury Law
unless he was assured that the advocates
OF change presented scheme calcua-
ted to ensure beneficial results, and pro-
mote justics between man and man, to
greater degree of perfection than the ex-
listing law. But he could not believe
that the scheme now presented by the
gentleman from Richmond city (Mr.
Daniel is as good as our present system.
He would call the attention of the house,
and ask them to compare this new jury
scheme withthe existing law on that sub
ject: and he had no doubt but that
large majority of the members would "a
gree with him. in voting against a bill
which. TO say the most of it, is calculated
to do more harm than good; and enter
tanning this opinion, sense of duty to
the country called upon him to resist the
passage Of this bill.
Mr. Mop. was also opposed to the a.
mendment offered by the gentleman from
Albemarie (Mr SUuthall) which mad for
its object reference Of the bill to the
people at the spring election for their a.
doption or rejection. The gentleman
has informed the house that he enter
tains doubts as to the proprlety of pass
ing this bill; blu, he is willing to go for
it if his amendment is adopted. MIR Mop
contended that the representatives of the
people were not sent here to propose
laws, but to make laws, which may seem
proper and necessary for the public good.
But the gentleman from Albemarle, with
all his legal requirements as a lawyer,
and practical experience as a legislator,
is willing TO submit bill of such impor-
lance TO the people, although he enter
talns doubts as to the. propriety of its
passage. This is certainly popular
move, to get rid Of The responsibility as
a representative, Ivy referring it to the
people, to ruin tJe chance of its adoption
Or rejection. IF this is bill of such
perpiexity and difficulty. that the assem-.
bled wisdom of the delegates from all
parts of Virginia entertain doubts-if it
battles tie skill of our best lawyers and
experienced representatives, this bo-
av wants sufficient wisdom and firmness
70 mass. such a bill without such an a.
mendment, then. indeed, it requires nc
nrophet to predict. that the signal of it;
defeat is near at hand. Should this bill
be referred to the people, if must be left
10 some few popular politicians or law
vers at home, to explain a difficulty in
which this house have doubts, and leave
such explanations to those who are no.
bound by that delicate and sensitive link
which controls the representative to the
will OF the great constituent body. L
tbe representatives of the people on thi!
aaor fear the responsibility of passin!
.his biIl-if they want faith as to its utlli
!. or popularity, it should be at once a
,-.odaned. 8 If we refer this bill to tn,
saonlc. we shall be called upon to refe
H. school bili, the bail bill, the S5t
20 bill, the deed of trust bill. ant
III bills which any gentleman may have
90 doubts about-and finally, we shall
- 10 here not to make laws. which, il
sa wisdom or the legislature, may b,
sa hs Just and proper for the genera
usad--bur the House of Delegates shall
oreafter assemble, merely TO propos
,s,vs ID the people, for their adoption o
lection, and the representative characte
Xxi he thereby stript of its all importan
M WV OF responsibility. If the a
,msendment proposed by the gentleman
from an AIbemarle should prevail, a CUES
i I!!oon,yiII be submitted TO the people 70
~. ~. discussion, which is uncaled 70
.nen ,bem. 1t will be remembered, tina
few days since, the house lefuset
sO', sntmit, for the consideration of tn
- question Of the first importance
p lvh;rrh thousands ofthe people had deaau