Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1856-01-22
dbt. Rallp SIP.
TUESDAY, JANUARY aa, 1856,
r.. Rirht. Of JurIr..

ceded, of Jures to Judge OF the law as Wen as the
fact, in criminal cases. 1t would not be more
in opposition to long. established precedent, or
naturally inherent right, for the Legislature to
circumscribe the jurisdiction of the Court, by
taking from it the power to expound the law
to the jury, than for it thus to restrict the
sacred right Of the jury.
As has been noticed in our Legislative re-
cord, Mr.. Dewey of Worcester, chairman Of
the committee on the Judiciary, to which was
referred an.order of Jan. 10th. relative to the
rights and duties of Jurors, on Thursday last
presented report, recommending the passage
of the following act:-
An act in addition to an act concerning the
duties and rights of Jurors -
Jurors shah not have the power of judging
or deciding the question ct the constitution
atty of any law involved IN the case on trial,
in making up their verdicts, but they are to
consider the law as constitutional until it is
decided otherwise by the Supreme Judicial
Court of this Commonwealth.
And the Committee, we are surprised to
see, proceed in their report on the as
sumption that, previous to the passage of the
law Of 1855, to which the above act is pro-
posed in addition, the rights Of jurors
were limited to a determination of facts, as.
cunning the law to be as stated by the Court
Thus they inculeate the idea that the Leg
islature of last year had I" empowered the
juries with certain rights antagonistic to what
had been heretofore deemed to belong to them,
and therefore they should be now re-taken
from them. Now, itseems to us, a greater
mistake could not be committed. The act of
last year is merely a re-enactment of law of
1908, never repealed, but accidentally left out
of the Revised Statutes in 1886. The right
of the jury to judge of the law as well as of
the fact in criminal cases, was never "cre-
ated' ~ any legislative body, and it can new.
er be destroyed, pass as many enactments as
you please in regard to the matter. Suppose
the present proposition passes, and receives
the signature Of the Governor, and that at
the very next session of the Criminal Courts,
a jury to whom had been submitted an i'm
portant case in regard to the life or liberty of
fellow man, should presume to take upon
themselves the high responsibility of judging of
the law as well as of the evidence, in their YER
dict,-a right which the courts of Great Brit
ain, for more than half a century, have not
presumed to withhold, and right which the
Courts in this country, for nearly that length
OF time, have been almost unanimous, until
recently, in granting, what, we ask, in that
case, are you "going to do about it, Not
one hair of juryman's Lead can betouched for
the act. If the jury say not guilty" you
have no right to go behind their verdict and
get from them the particular reason for their
conclusion. Neither can you oblige them to
agree. Thus your enactment cannot be of
any great validity, and therefore the exceed
ing folly Of passing it. Its principal effect
would be to warp the minds of weak jurors.
The act of 1855, concerning the duties and
rights of jurors, was substantially, and al
most scientifically, word for word, the same as
proposition number three Of the late proposed
New Constitution, as follows
ssIn all trials for criminal offenses 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 gem
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 Court to superintend the course of the
trials, to decide upon the admission and rejec-
ton of evidence, and upon all questions of
law raised during the trials, and upon all col
lateral and incidental proceedings, and also to
charge the jury and allow bills of exception;
and the Court may grant new trial in cases
of conviction
This, the present proposed enactment pro-
poses to modify, go far as to take from theju-
~ the power to judge of the CONSTITUTIONAL
~ of all laws. Now, the right Of juries,
above affirmed, is one as old as the country,
and dates as far back even as Magma Charta
itself dLn fact, it is the most vital thing sp-
pertaining to the great institution of jury tri-
al. tits impossible for legislation to take
from cr add to this right. 1t may or may not
have been described with sufficient broadness
in the act of last year, but that is inmaterial,
a. the great right itself existed long anterior
TO any legislative enactment. 1t is right
which can properly find definition only in,
the constitution itself, with which it is coeval
In authority, whether it have literal exist.
ence in that instrument or not.
The act Of 1856, above quoted, is merely
re-enactment of the statute of 1908, of sim
liar purport, and this was the established poll
icy of the Courts of the State until within
few years; since certain overwise heads in
Massachusetts have taken the responsibility
Of areversal of the before prevailing or
der OF things, by attempting to circum-
eribe one Of the primal birthrights Of the peo-
ple-the right Of trial by an unpacked, un.
trammeled, andunbiased jury. At another is
sue, we propose examining this matter fur
ther, in the light Of the precedchts established.
JEFFERSON DAvIs.-The rumor Of the elec.
ton of this gentleman TO the u S. Senate is
confirmed, and he contemplates resgning hi0
seat in the Cabinet.
Several of the Boston papers Of yesterday,
contained the above item. That part of it
which relates to the election Of Secretary Da-
Wis as U. s. Senetor, is undoubtedly correct,
- the South are always sure to retain the ser.
ices Of those most steadfast and earnest in
defence of slavery. while the North pusues
+" compromise" policy. But so far as the Sec.
retarya resignation of his seat in the Cabinet
u concerned, il is obviously without founda-