Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1856-01-28
On 1lailp. SPp.
MONDAY, JANUARY Is, 1856,
The Jury Question.

OH JULIUS AAPAt ~ Va e@A~ SS-ASN'NN
tionality of any law" has passed the Senate.
The extent of the change which the bill, in
this shape, if it passes the House, will effect
upon the relative rights and powers of jurors,
seems not to be precisely settled, arising out
of different construction, which has been
put upon the act of 1865, in certain quarters.
One journal, which was very earnest and en-
phatic in its denunciation of the proposed in
termcddling with that act, on the understand
ing that it granted to Jurors the full right to
Judge of the Law as well as the evidence in
criminal cases, now seems to admit that the
bill, as amended, amounts to nothing in the
way of interfering with jury rights, "beeause
the law of last year did not undertake to give
jurors any new right, but aimed merely TO
declare and sustain the right which they have
always had" According to this view OF 1t,
the proposed bill is mere nullity, and the
advocates of jury restriction, if satisfied with it,
must be thankful for small favors Below is
q copy of the enactment Of last year, from the
reading of which all must deduce their own
COuclublONS Us " lto AuCAuAnS
SIN all trials for criminal offences it shall
be the duty of the jury to try according to
established forms and principles of law all
causes which shall be committed to them, and
after having received the instructions OF the
Court, to decide at their discretion, by gen.
eral verdict, both the fact and the law involv-
ed in the issue. or to find special verdict. at
their election. But it shall be the duty Of the
- Of 4hof r;o
to decide upon the admission and rejection of
evidences upon all questions of law raised
during the trials, and upon ali collateral and
incidental proceedings. and also to charge the
jury and allow bills of exception; and the
Court msy grant new trial in cases of con-
viction."
1t is evident from the arguments used dur
ing its tendency. that the Senate bill was
voted. for by different Senators from widely
different considerations, some sustaining it be-
cause they thought jurors possessed the pow
ers and rights in question, independent of any
legislative enactment, and others because they
thought that the last Legislature had confer
red power upon them unwarranted by their
conservative ideas. AS to which party were
nearest correct in their construction of last
years statute, we do not feel competent to de-
eide, but we wish to be understood as en-
phatic and decided in the position, that it is
without the bounds of legislative authority
to add to or detract from the rights of jurors
but at the same time, when State happens to
be so fortunate as to have declared and con-
frmAd unon ito afofuta hool fbie inast;nohla
right, possessed as we believe by an authority
running as far back as Magma Charta, and as in.
cumbent in its validity as the constitution it.
self, Cwhether it have literal existence as a
provision in that instrument, or noD, we can
see no earthly objection to letting it remain
there, as beacon light, to guard against the
tendency manifested of late, to usurpation
of power by the Courts. We look upon the
repudiaion,b by lie Senate, of the principle as
serted in the original bill of the Judiciary
Committee, las = concession to the principle we
are contending for.
Senator Warren of Suffolk, who, we sup
pose, is fair specimen of that race of modern
Legislators who wish to retrench, by law, the
constitutional right of Jurors, is reported to
have taken the position, IN his profound ar
gument in support of the Senate bill, that
"juries have been created by government, and
being the creations of government, it has the
power to annul any rights they may have pos
sessed."
1t is sufficient condemnation of the present
proposed legislative enactment on this mat
ter, to find it advocated by men of such ideas.
The State would be in danger, were the num-
Der of such old fogies to be multiplied. A
worse state than that of dissolution and an.
archy would preyail-s condition of monarchy
and despotism. We should as soon think of
legislating to take away from the people any
other Of their primal birth rights or priv
leges, as the right to trial by an unpack.
ed, untrammeled, and unbiased jury of their
peers The doctrines of Jeffreys or Mans
field, in monarchical England, were hardly
more abhoEent to free people. than this doc
trine of Senator Warren. But the Parlia-
ment Of monarchieal England, to her credit
has always and invariably secured this great
right, against any attempts Of her judges to
abridge it.
In the discussion on Friday, Senator Shaw
Of Nantucket is reported as saying in defence
Of the jury bill, that sit was mistaken no.
ton that man has natural sense of right and
wrong, which may be relied upon to guide
him to just decisions, and argued that Jurors
should not be entrusted with questions of
eOnstitutiOnAlity, This is certainly very
consistent position for those to take who
would invade any Of the sacred rights Of jury
trial, but we must confess we were hardly
prepared to see advocated by Senator Of Mas
sachusetts. in the noon OF the nineteenth cen.
fury, sentiments 50 anti-republean, and so
utterly subvefsive Of all the fundamental prin-
ciples Of popular government. as a denial of
man'D inherent natural sense and capacity
60 judge Of matters Of right and wrong,
whether religious or political. None but
monarchiSts and Jssuits, in this age of the
world, should pretend to sustain such doctrines
as these.
Apublic meeting was held at Montgomery.
Ala, tho 9th, to aid Major Bufford in his
scheme to make KAnzss a slave State. A