Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1851-07-29

80 Jrriss were the oh"@lAs liza. pto'esc.eu VIC
hers IN Tho right, of person and property from the
Peeple "a ~ of The crown, and thus they were re-
ass,I tbs chief guards of these rights II was IN
sIaxs Of the greatest gloom ana sternest struggles
b ,bs crown, that the trial oy jury became So en-
win sao ,he neops, and We inherit all their attach
doarea 70 IL. nj. Country As far the number twelve
us" ~ I'D have no doubt the gentleman states the
IS of il correctly 1t gre" OUT OF the qualns iuea
orgy" Was something OF pecuilar virtue derived
he unher Of the apostles, se signs H Tue ZODIAC,
OF sonce ,tjes. is not much virtue in thirteen
|, reason, we We've The substantive proposition Of
OF II 80, the Individual was allowed in contest
o,h,,sry 2Jwcc 10 INVOKE ue ,oiee VI niS peers
TWAS u'a nSr ,welye Now | think the number
I'i ms No. verr we'll, simply because it has been
t "en and adjusted. Eleven or thirteen would
80 lone a, we'll, because with either number the
hs. right of appeal to the country against op
s.;re mower was reserved and maintained The
s consists in the right Of an appeal to the country
h. aIiudsed BIZ the country, who necessarily SYM
,,,b.e with the accused and have common interest
with him in all tho questions aneetns tho rights OF per-
.o,;and property Substantially It IS immateral what
,nnbsr composed the jury, but as the habit Of the
ntry has grown up to require twelve as the MI nbar oil
n.culr virtue, think that prejudice judsmen,
r, RIA subject should have sway so long as It exists
t hold tina, it enough to leave to the country conro
arsr the subject; that the body OF the people al
competent through their representatives 20 guard
their interests, and the interests OF persons anc
nrop.rt, in the mode Of trial. hold that the pre,en
,Ie has left this subject upon its proper basis Wh
~ the provisions Of the code? That the urss Tor the
control OF the civil shall consist Of twelve unless
h,a parties agree to less numoer. Why should the
INVENTION provide that parties shall not agree TO less
number than twelve il ,hey prefer IL and are satisfied
ina, her interests to be advaaaged by it, There
NJ rcasch Tor it. Nv friend from o@ha;an urg ID
strong illustration Of the importance OF his proposition
Ias 81 this number twelve there had obtained in his
county peculiar result, by which the first jury bsng
hung By obstinate man. the plaintiff in that case had
Subsequently got his rights Then had better pro-
VI c :h,. there shall always be hung jury, and tina
the frs. jury may do wrong 1t is better consti:u-
,onal provision because the party in the right cannot
always get an obstinate man the first time. | think
That this Gully illustrates the Importance OF our pro
rid;ns for hung jury upon the first trial. thns
the committee can safely and properly, looking TO the
legislature Of the country, leave this question ii
is row under the bill of rights in the hands of the lie
sis,atlre see q very great propriety in allowing the
oari:e. plaintiff and defendant, to agree less
Der than twelve whenever they shall prefer 50 to do.
We al know from our experience that 1t is almost ru-
mons 10 parties endure the risks of hung nres with
the present mode of trial, and this provision OF ths
code gives party the opportunity OF adjusting i'll the
mode 10 be preferred, these other controversies which
oen are not Of sufficient value to be ected to the
cost OF trial.
NJ. RIvES. presume there is no difference Of
opinion about the right the Importance Of the right
OF the trial BY jury That being conceded, it seems &c
me unnecessary to go back in the argument TO the
origin Of the institution of the trial by jury The ques
tion involved upon inserting this amendment recon-
Iaeaaed By the committee upon the bill OF rights seems
10 me to turn upon this point, whether you shall have
uniformity in the trial by jury Concede the trial By
Jury to be necessary shall parties in litigation whe
they cone into court OF justice have uniformity il
that trial By jury or shall the parties come into
court Of justice where and may agree tohave trial
BY Jury Of seven mon and where and may have tn,
rizht of trial by jury of twelve men 1t
ought TO have some respect 10 uniformity and order
Heavens first law" at least in courts Of jcs
tee am not going to argue that there is an,
th.og magical in the number twelve because beev,
that the number twelve, as the gentleman has we'll said
is not Of itself any recommendation Twelve is a pro.
psr nul5er however and its history in the judicial pro
casdngs Of not only this country but Of every countr
where the right of trial By jury Is respected shows tina
th. nuIlber twelve has worked well and the question
tAt presents itself is whether this number that hs
worked 50 III ali countries and at all times shall b.
change That is the question: If it has worked wei
il ali time. and in all cases, If in civil matters it ha
answered our purpose ard IN criminal proceedings j
ms answered purposes, why the necessity OF chang
la il, But it is asked why should We insert provision
il relation TO it in the constitutions The answer wa
rva by II. gentleman from Powhatan and by the ger
Team from Logan (Nlr. FERousoS.) An effort ha
be cads BIZ the legislature Of Virginia to change tn
,i. OF trial 5y jury in civil cases, that if they think
paper 10 have jury less than twelve they can Go
Ns friend from Rappahaan 'ck thinks |: would be
n7 aston OF the rights Of Individuals and would be athe
Ii CHINA .ded measure "?on the part oI the Conveno
prefer itt,tTeve. Now so far :ron1Jeing an inyaso.
OF the rights OF the individual it is extension Of hi
;.:s. How Suppose \ AID so mo court upon 3
orrn law based upon the provision in the con,titu
t,on giving them opportunity Of having tra! by ::
irry of twelve men. Suppose and prefer deciso:
hr seven men, caaEc and before their is takur
T., ~ court agree that if seven agree with tn,
rssd Ct shah as the seven say, aud II the seven are'
upon the side Of B. then the verdict shall 60 in his favor
lie who prefers trial by jury of seven will have tn,
advantage of making his outside arrangement, if yot
ease to take yerdict of ve seven or any nunbe
olmen, or he caa take the veTdic, Of twelve men,
Then to place it upon its strongest grounds, suppose
tina: he and myself had controversy nv friend vii
See that to Civ. the largest privilege, should
t,5;>h the uniform number OF twelve If he and ,
pc ing by seven, and we go into court, where
Dolly almost satisfied with the number twelve.
c.uli we not make an outside arrangement If VI,
tsied if say my side Of the question right and
.sven say your side is right, would you be is
fad? Tuen what advantage Is lost We can take III,
chances with jury Of twelve or we can make out.
side arrangement take the decision Of less mher
Now 50 far from it being inroad upon any establish
ed custom, think the necessity of the insertion Of suc
provision has been made manifest from the fact thai
tac legislature did make eifJr to establish provision
in which the trial oy jury was placed in situation
where there is not uniformity. If it was necessary
argue here whether the number twelve shouic
be adopted, then an argument might be adaucsl l.
show that Twelve is better than seven. But is no. ad
vocatei upon the ground that seven is better than
Twelve. 7, is only advocated that it is always under
stood TO mean twelve and there is necessity for in
sertay twelve. Eut in the face Of the fact that t
"a aa:er Springs. the effort was made BY the legisla
tire Interrupt the uniformity which you claim to b'
es,a5ised wish to know if it is not prudent to nser
prorision to guard against that which you feal
my oy possibility be interrupted Again, persons who
aaats not the only individuals who before
Ky. Minors, who have not the discretion to sa,
heher twelve would be better for their inter
est., often are engaged in suits and guardian wiz
take the responsibility Of saying for his wards that he
viii take seven if he did think it would be power
tia, Should not exercise.
think for the sake Of uniformity if for nothing else
unless gentlemen can show that any number less than
tseve IS better, SHOULD ad p tat If they prele;
a.,o:hor and base argument upon that, then
EIneut will he between the two. But in the absence
o:aay argument to show that any number i, better
than twelve, cannot see why we should not insert
tseve. And in to the argument that it cuts oil
ne privilege of taking if they desire, less than
seTc3 far from cutting off all arrangement they can
Hase any arrangement they please out of Court AMI take
six sevcn or i've, or whatever number they lhin;
ev.er. Believing that it is almost the unanimol.