Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1851-11-22

is marked with that ability for which he was highly dis
Dgvished and which leaves ground for the assertion that
the right in question conceded by him.
Ia United States vs. Boptiste Sumner 240 Mr.. Justice
Story proncu ced opinion this question during the
ts Of capital Indictment He denied that this right
ised and for the denial Of exceeding weight and
force This decision published than sixteen years
II has been before the profession and within the know
ledge OF Congress An Of ten lines would at any time
have changed the rule which he laid down. No such act
has been passed.
If we look the decisions of the Courts Of the States
think we shall find their weight in the SCALE
The earliest is People CrostceH, John, Cas-
337 The question was as TO the right Of the jury to pass
on and ceede the intent under indictment for LIBEL The
Court equally divided AS has aeady been suggested,
this by question raised here and that by the
law OF the State of New York at this day the jury not
judges Of the law in the contended for infer from
the opinion of Judge Barculo in Peopvs Price, Barb. s.
T. X 566 for in the trial Of indictment for murder be
told The jury that their duty the law from the
Court and conform their decision to such instructions and
under this ruling the prisoner convicted and executed
This question has been very carefully considered and ella
boale and extremely able opinions upon 1t delivered by the
highest in Indiana New Hampshire and Massachu
sets The reasoning Of these opinions far app
cable to the question before has my entire assent The
question not necessarily the in the courts Of the
raj States and of the United States though many of the ele
mens which into il alike in all Of
law, bound by constitutional provision,
and judgment has been much influenced these opinions
remains for TO notice briefly Of the arguments
which relied by the defendants counsel in support Of
bis position. II is sold that, in rendering general verdict
Of guilty not guilty, the jury have the power pass,
and do In fact pass every thing which enters into the
crime. This true but it is just true Of general
dict in rover espass and yet suppose the right of the
jury decide the Law in those 10 claimed The
jury have the power 60 contrary the law decided by
the court but that tho power Is not the right psn when
wecosder that they bave also the Ike power contrary
to the evidence, which they sworn not to do 8
supposed that the old law form Of the oath Of
jurors in criminal indicates that they bound
take the law from the Court It'd strike my mind
They TO decide according 10 the evidence. This
must that they decide the facts according to the
evidence But if they may also decide the law, they
wholly unswon 10 that and act under obligation Of
oath at all in making such decisions passage in Little
toms Tenuies Glib. g. 1857 and the statute Wetmin
ster 3d., (l3 Ed. ~ and the Commentary of Coke
thereon, relating Assize q Inst 425 have been re-
ferred to throwing light this inquiry but it to
enough to say that the aisle not urythat
size not criminal case but action between party
and party, and that if the statute intended confer the
the right well the power decide the law was
strange provision, which subjected them to punishment if
they decided the law wrong for would seem that what
right what wrong must be determined by the m
bunal having the rghtful power determine it, which is
supposed TO be the assize itself
That thas been familiar saying among the profession in
this country and opinion entertained highly respectable
Judges that the Jury Judges OF the law well Of the
facts have no doubt In some believe il to be
ue for they the sole judges the application Of the law
to the particular In this sense, theirs is the duty TO
pass the law most important and often difficult duty,
which, when discharged makes the difference between
general and special verdict which, although they may return
they not bound to They ordinate branch
Of the tribunal having their appropriate powers and rights
and duties with the proper discharge and exercise of which
Court can, without usurpation, nterpose but ii is not
their province decide any question Of law in criminal any
than civil cases. and if they should intentionally fail
apply to the thelaw given to them by the Court it would
be- opinion, as much violation Of duty if they
knowingly verdict contrary TO the evidence.
strong appeal has been made the Court by of the
defendants COUNSEL upon the ground that the exercise of this
power BY ures important TO the preservation of the rights
and liberties Of the citizen If thought So should pause
long before denied its existence But good deal of rec-
ton has convinced that the argument drawn from this
quarter really the other way As long The Judges the
United States obliged to express their opinions publicly
give their for them when called upon in the usual
mode and to stand responsible for them, only TO public
opinion but to Of impeachment, apprehend very
little danger Of the laws being wresed purposes Of injustice
But the other hand, do consider that this power and
duty Of the Court to declare the
law of the highest safeguards Of the citizen The final
indeed the sole end Of courts Of JUSTICE is TO enforce
the laws uniformly and mpartay without respect Of PERSONS
times the opinions of men, To enforce popular laws,
10 apply the laws to unpopular causes easy When
popular cause is just causewhen law, unpopular in
locality is to be enforced there-hen the strain
upon the administration Of justice and few unprecedented men
will hesitate to where that strain would be most firmly borne
nave entered mus at large INTO thls important quesuon,
with unaffected reluctance. Having been directly and strongly
appealed aud finding that Judge Of any Court of the
United States had any published opinion examined upon
such grounds that could feel had right repose his
decision, knew how avoid the duty which thus
thrown upon My firm conviction lie, that under the
Constitution Of the United Staes jures in criminal trials
have not the right to decide any question Of law snd that
they render general verdict their duty and their oath
qure them to apply the facts they may find them. the
law given to them by the Court
Chase's trial, p. 182.
I Townsend Is. The State Q Blackf. (Ind.) R. 152.
Pierce The State Is N. H. R., $50.
Commonwealth ps Porter, 10 Met, IL, 263. ,a
For able criticism this Statute, the opinion
of Gilchrist in Is N. r. 5A2 Worhington Juries,
72-94.
METHOD OF CURING HAMS.
The hams of Maryland and Virginia have long enjoyed
wide ceebrity At the last exhibition Of the MARYLAND State