North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1852, 1851-12-17
.Enr the Stondard

From what has been said by the Register and sew
era other Wing Editors, in regard to this right on the
trial OF Mt' avery, one would suppose this new
question, and for the first time advanced and sustain
ed by the Court. Your readers may be surprized to
learn that tits the doctrine of the Common Law and
at this day IS fully recognized both in England and
this country In very elaborate and learned opin-
len given by the Supreme Court of Vermont in which
this question is fully examined and the authorities
given, 1t will be found the right is INDICATED as es-
sental to the protection of innocence and the preser
walton OF liberty and for that has been MAIN
tanned and preserved Let the reader be alarmed
at the idea that the doctrine has been advanced be-
cause OF the fugtive-save law; il existed long be-
tore that law was even heard of. You will allow
to give you some extracts from the very able opinion
of the Vermont Supreme Court, with reference TO
some of the and authorities there quoted, as
being OF greater weight than any which could be adj
vanced oy myself The question came directly be-
fore the Court, the Judge below had charged the
jury, they were not the judges of the law but of the
facts only, and were bound take the law from the
Court. 1t is admitted by those who hold this doc
trine, that if jury should exercise their own judy
ments. and find verdict of guilty, there is no
power in the Court to that verdict aside. But
they say, the jury bound to take the law from the
Court and, by refusing to do so, they violate PrIn-
clpe of law and guilty of moral wrong. On
the other hand it is contended that jury, execis
ing the power of deciding the law and the facts by
general verdict, is exerting Legitimate and legal
power, which they may rghtfully do, although it be
in contradiction to the law, stated by the Court
1t is, says learned Judge the true principle of
the Common Law, and is peculiarly applicable to
free government while the people exercise the power
in criminal cases. in the persons of jurors selected
from among themselves, and while the power thus
retained furnishes the best security against the pos
sbe exercise of arbitrary power by the Judges, it a
fords the best protection to innocence" The right
well as the pOaUer of jures, in criminal trials, to
resolve both the law and the facts by general YER
Dict had been favorite doctrine in the United States
until the contrary doctrine was held by Judge Story,
the case of the o. s. vs. BGtteste, since which it
hove hoop foll iof no IF
sets, but not elsewhere. For time the English
Judges attempted to encroach upon the rights of ur
crs, and to decide the whole matter. in criminal
cases, yet resisted and the prerogave of the
Crown forced to yield to the freedom Of the sub
ect. The first attempts to compel jurors give their
verdics according to the wishes of the Judges, were
by fines and imprisonments, until the House of Com
mons declared such conduct on the part of Chief
Justice, arbitrary and illegal exercise IF po,ver."
In 1910. the famous William Penn was indicted. He
contended he had been guilty of no ofence-the Judge
charged strongly against him-the jury found ver-
dict OF not guty-when the Judge fined them for
acting contrary 10 the direction of The C1urt TN matter
of La,v." But one of the jurors-ike John Hampden
in regard to ship money-refused to pay the fine
whereupon he was committed 10 prison. He brought
his by ha6eas corpus before the Judges, and the
question fully argued to the power of the
Court to control the verdict of the jury in matter of
law. The judgment of the eleven Judges in de-
NAL of any such power. and in favor of the right of
the jury to determine both the law and the fact
Vaughan's Rep. 1876. This settled the law in
England until the time of Lord Mansfield, when it
was revived in cases of libel. This p.oduced Junus'
famous letter Lord Mansfield, who presided in
the trial of the prosecution of Wood all for the pub
LEGATION of his attack the King-when Parliament
intefered by refusing sustain the Judge, and
ted that in of libel, g. the jury should give
their verdict upon the whole matter in ISSUE" 1t
was of these trials. and the acquittal by the
jury, that produced the satirca ballad ending with
the lines:
" For twelve honest men have decided the cause,
I'm dozen LiE Off f,cEs The
In this country the decisions of The courts have
been in favor of the independence of jures, until the
case decided by Judge Story. Even in the famous
sedton of l798 is declared that the jury should
have IS the right to determine the law and the act.'
So in the trial of Fries for treason, Judge Chase de-
cared that the jury to dec de in that, and TN all
criminal cases. both the AaW and tie facts" In n still
later case tried before Judge Baldwin, who, after |
stating the law, added, in his charge to the jury
IS you will distinctly understand, you the judges
both OF the law and the facts in criminal case. and
are not bound by the opinion of the Court" Bald
rims Hep. SO. This doctrine is also recognized in
the State cases, State Allen, McCord. 525, State
o. Holden, Georgia r. AL, Ala. R. 666. So in |
recent in England, Rex .. BurGet, Chief-Jus-
tlce Abbot said the jury were at liberty to exercise
their own udgment upon the whole matter in issue,
after receiving the opinion of the Judge" These !
cases certainly establish the right Of the jury which
those Editors seem to consider veIy dangerous
and in this country it will continue be exercised,
until Legislature shall be found bold enough to de-
clare that verdict of acquittal shall be aside and
second trial had if the jury shall disregard the in
structions of the Judge upon point of law. When
such law this shall be enacted, the trial by jury
will not be worth preserving. The po,oer of jury
to decide the law well the fact is involved in /
the plea of not guty-and this po,oer is equivalent
right. This power of jury may be abused, and so
may that of the Judge. jury may, from feeling,
acquit the strictly legally guilty, and may the
Judge, as in the case of Algernon Sidney by the
butcher Jeffreys-causing the innocent suffer. II
is submitted then, this power has been given TO
nd he nv !
egal tribunal, it may be lawfully and righfuy ex-
srcised and such power is in itself legal right.
1t appears then, there is just grounds for CEN
surfing the Judge who presided the trial. or of the
ury who rendered the verdict of guilty in the
Ease of Mr.. Avery. They doubt governed
" the considerations as Influenced the Boston
in, who had sough: disgrace him by an attempt to
ane him. That man who has acted the part of an
ssassin, by attacking peaceable witho ut arms,
himself being fully armed, creates reasonable ground
supposing that he who has once so acted will re-
his dastardy attack the first chance that presents
tself 1t is dangerous To society for the law
protection to such characters, than authorize
nd excuse those who otherwise submit to ire
'arabIe injury, defend themselves every hazard.
And whatever these political maligners may say the
oice of the public has already pronounced its APP
'rovaI of the verdict rendered by the jury.
VOX POPULI.
The Rev. Thos. Whittemore. President of the
7ermont and Massachusetts Railroad Co., has recent
y accomplished walk its entire length, from
'iichburg, Mass. Bratteboro, VT, distance of
evenly miles The work was done at four different