New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-07-31

for twenty four hours, before the Jddge would
allow the m to separate. This length of detention
il denounced as IN imprisonment" ofthe Jurors
and as "an attem 2t TO coerce verdict Ihe
Boston Post, that distinguished advocate of the
right of trial By jury, talks about 1t as ="
.svolaticn of all equity, of the safety and rights
"of the citizens-sn arbitrary, desPotic e1er-
"cise of power by the court, repagnant 10
"eyery principle of Republican government
land in derogation Of the Constitution which
"vas established SO the palladium of our
"lberty"-sll with as much JUNCTION as though
that journal were not, with all this zeal for the
rights of Juries and The privilege of jury trial,
a Jealous defender of the Fugitive Slave Act
Vow looking at these Jurymen Whose refusal
to sgree to verdict of guilty caused the deten-
ton Of themselves aud their brother Jurors, Of
which The Post complains) merely in the char
acter of thirsty individuals obliged to abstain for
this unusual period of twenty-four hours and
more from their accustomed and fayorlte beTer-
ages, we should not be in the least surprised at
a little cursing and swearing on their part, nor
at their beginning after pretty free refresh
ment to talk solemn after the style of the above
ouotstion from The Boston Post. But regarding
them in the character of Jurymen who, IN
der the statute of Massachusetts, making
Jurors judges of the law, had taken upon them
selves the responsibility of investigating the
copstitutionsty Of the Massachusetts, Liquor
Law, We cannot say that tTenty-four or even
twenty-eight hours would seem extrava-
gantly long period for such purpose. Very
few judicial opinions, very few legal opinions,
upon point of that character are given on less
than twenty. four hours consideration. These
Jurors, we are told in the Boston papers, left
their seats with their minds made up. After
all the delay, both Juries were divided e1-
sctly as they had been at first-so many for
yer diet of guilty, so many for a verdict OF
scquittal-an acquittal based, it is fair TO pre-
sumo, since the facts of the case were clear, on
the unconstitutionslity of the law. But though
this might be so, still for the Judge not to have
allowed little time for reflection would have
been to expose these Jurors with their minds
thus hastily made up to the danger OF commlt-
ting perjury. which perhaps even with tue delay
of twenty -four hours more or less, they may not
wholly have escaped. The statute makes the
jury Judges of the law no doubt; but it makes
them Judges only of what the law IS, not of what
it ought 10 be. This is very important distlnc-
ton, which possibly even with their twenty'tour
hours consideration of the matter, some or all
of these Boston jurors may have overlooked. 1t
they have not done sO--if they have cOnsclen-
tiously fulfilled their duties as juIymen, and can
lay their hands on their hearts and say so, we
are quite sure they will agree with us in saying
that with whatever suddenness of intention or
force of conviction the perception of the uncon-
stitutonality of the law may have instantaneous
" flashed upon them, twenty-four hours was
none too long to submit this sudden inhux OF
legal knowledge to the test and examination of
reason and reflection.