Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1856-01-23

| ton, Supplementary proposition No. 3. Iela-
tive TO the Jury. In that article it is some
what cody assumed that ''no sensible and re-
heeting citizen would for moment counte-
nance" the amendment
had Hoped, Mr.. Editor, that no party would
take issue upon this proposal to resuscitate the
institution of the Jury. which has OF late
years been much enfeebled by insdious at
tacks. These hopes, however, it is already
evident, ale destined to disappointment. And,
therefore, as one who believes that the prop.
os'tion OF the late convention, if adopted.
VIII simply restore TO the jury, in criminal
cases, its old aud time honoled right of pass
ing upon the law, by rendering a general
verdict, fright inesiimable to the people.
and formidable to tyrants only" feel call
ed upon 10 correct one or two points in your
srtlcle, and that from which you quote.
contend that the Jury enjoyed this right
from time coeval with the existence of the
institution. Down to the ruling of Lord
Mansheld, the right was only questioned to be
the moie signally vindicated That great, bad
Judge. eminent in evil cases. as the fit tool
Of power in criminal cases, & political prosecu
ton, first raised the absurd distinction be-
tween the poioer and the right, of the jury
Was this asurpation acquiesced in: On the
contrary, Lord Camden, ctarum ct venera5de
nomea, defied Lord Mansfield to defend his
doctrine in the House of Lords, pledging
himself to prove that no political right of the
Englishman was more clearly established,
than that Of deciding the law in criminal cases,
when placed upon Jury. The great Chat
ha concurred with Lord Camden and indig-
nsntly denounced the covert attemptto sub
vert the foundations of the Law.
And yet, in matters SO closely affecting our
civil rights, we are told to follow Mansfield
who scrupled not TO maintain the Stamp act,
and 10 defend every other enormlty of which
the GrenWlle administration was gui ty in it's
conduct towards the oppressed colonies of
America. Am | alone in defending this
right of the Jury9 What says THOMAS JBP-
PERSON, in his Notes on Virginia, when speak
ing Of the doctrine and practice of Jurors in
his day -
"These magistrates have jurisdiction both
criminal and civil. II the question heflre
them be question of law only, they decide
on 1t themselves; but if it be of fact, or of
fact and law combined, it must be referred to
jury In the latter case. of a combination
of law and fact, it is usual for the Jurors to
decide the fact and to refer the law arising on
it to the decision of the judges. But this di-
vision OF the subject hes with their disci elton
only. And If the question relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it b. one of those in
which the judges may be suspected of bias,
the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact. If they bemistaken, a decision against
right, which is casual only. is less dangerous
to the State, and less affecting to the loser,
than one which makes part of regular and
uniform system. In truth it is better to toss
up eros and pile in a cause, than to re fer it to
Judge whose mind is warped by any motive
whatever, in that particular case. But the
co nmon sense Of twelve honest men, gives
still better chance of just decision, than the
hazard of cross and pile
John Adams has hitherto been deemed ''a
sensible and rejecting citizen" In his diary,
he thus reviews this question -
"Now, should the melancholy case arise,
that the judges should give their opinions to
the jury against one of these fundamental
principles, is juror obliged to give his YER
dict generally, according to that direction, or
even to find the fact specially, and submit the
law to the court? Eoe,y man, Of any feeling
or conscience, will answer NO. 1t is hot only
his right, but his duty, in that case, to find
the verdict according to his own best UNDER
standing, judgment, and conscience though
IN direct opposition TO the direction of the court.
The English law oblges no man to decide
cause npon oath against his own judgment,
nor does 1t oblige any man to take any opin-
ION on trust, OF to pin his faith on the sleeve
of any mere man.
Surely, a doctrine, repealed by such author
tiles, is at least entitled to respectful consider
alton And IT, under such a system, at the
n. - Mercury coFnpl4ins--''ao Juror can be
held TGsalaaa sihLa Ear his .eraint' ii rust be
remembered that the policy of attui~ti,.s ;is.-
rors. is too obsolete and odious for revival
And, though the Mercury fears the effect of
such system upon the extradition OF fugi-
tive slaves, its apprehensions will scarcely be
shared by any sensible and reheGting citi-
zen," until fugitive slaves are invested with
the night of trial by jury. L.