New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-02-02

sorccment of unjust and arbitrary enacmeDts' II Is
a. A means Of tempering the hard technlcaN''es,
the artificial reasonngs and the metaphysical ana
LOGICAL absurdities of lswyers and judges oy
Ut,le of common sense and Of the sentiment oil JUS
flee and right IS between man and man-tha' tue
iurv trial has made itself famous; ana as even
with our democratic system OF government we are
bv no means vet delivered from these evils, we
hope TO see the system of trial by jury IN spite Oh
some occasional inconvenience, still preserved IN
oil its purity.
Several recent failures in this city OF Jurles 10
agree on verdct-especially one recent and qll'e
notorious instance-haye prompted some OF our
city journals 70 advocate change in the constrc-
ten of iures So as 70 give the decision TO pIurai
ity. il nay well be doubted whether this can De
done consistently with our State Constitution, OF
the United States Constitution l. not the trial by
iurv spoken of therein, the unanimous verdict OF a
iurv of twelve mem Was rot that unquestOnaoy
the meaning and intention with which this word
s.iury" was used But even apart from this con-
stitutiona objection, change of that sort would be
exposed to some pretty wegbty objections.
The great advantage of the rule of unanimlty Is
that il compels the taking into account the views
and opinions of every single juror. 1t may often
happen, and it does often happen, in complicated
and difficult cases that only four, three, two, per-
hans but single Juror really cOmprehends the CASE
or has any distinct idea Of the verdict that justice
and the evidence demands. If majority decided
the one, two or three men of sense might be over
ridden without ceremony or any opportunity oil ar
cuing their side of the case, by the eight, nine,
ten or eleven blockheads, who would be thus
able 10 dispose Of the without consulting their
mere intelligent companions. AS unanmity Is ne
cessary, discussion, too, becomes necessary. Each
juror has the opportunity of stating hls views ana
the grounds of them: and thus it often happens,
that the verdict as rendered. and the right verdict,
too. is that which at the beginning found favor
only with minority, and perhaps small minority
of the iury. II is true that a minority of one,
two or three mss be stupid, foolish, obstinate or
corrupt; but is the majority sure to be free from
like disabilities And in fact, does it not happen
sometimes that the firmness of a single individual
saves the Jury from false and wrong decision!
The reference BY The ~ Y. Times to the case OF
where majority decides, is not much to the pur-
pose In both those countries trial by jury Is an
exotic institution, recently introduced, and Scotch
and French juriss, in speaking of it, consider 1t
hardly at all in its constitutional and political
character, but merely as means OF verifying the
facts in ordinary criminal cases. If it is to be
looked at in that light merely, its use might per-
l.,. 10 a., wall dispansa1 with a1toOpthpr
The class of cases in which dsagreements of ju-
RES most frequently occur and are most loudly
complained Of is class very difficult TO dispose OF
in satisfactory manner under any system.
They are eases in which the accused party,
from his wealth, his position in society, or his
sectarian or party connections, is able to excite
strong sympathy in his favor, independently of the
merits of Lis case. 1t is pretty plain that, since
decided difference Of opinion exists in the commu-
nity as to the decision that ought TO be come to IN
these cases, no decision that can be made on them
would be satisfactory to the entire public. In
such cases the inability of jury to agree does but
express the existing difference Of opinion in the
public at large so that after ALL the fault is rather
with the public than with the jury. 1t is very
natural III tuCH cases lnhl lnt pdit! III thc Ooi-
munty who are or who think themselves the ma
jority should complain very loudly at not being able
TO carry the jury with them and should call for
changes in the method of decsiOn-whch pro-
posed changes, however, would be much more
plausible were ii more certain than it is that in
all these cases the prevailing public Judgment is
always the right one.
Still, it must be admitted that in the trial of
political offenders, by which we intend here per-
sons charged with misbehavior in Office, this de-
mend of unsnimty on the part of the jury is liable
to special abuse, since the recklessness of party
spirit is well known, and since persons so charged
can hardly fail TO have upon the jury, which is to
try them, some with whom party sympathies will
20 further than the sense Of right and justice.
1t becomes, therefore, question well worthy OF
consideration, whether some process i'll the nature
of an impeachment, but swift and speedy in its
operations, might not be benefciay applied to the
case of all persons charged with malyersatiOn in
offce-a procedure in which the comparative
sghtness of the punishment (Which, to escape
constitutional objections, might be limited to de-
pryation of Office and inability ever to hold
another) would be more than made up for in the
facility Of obtaining judgment, and in depriving
the culprit, to a certain degree, of the means Of
shelteripg himself behind party sympathies.
The case of one who sets about performing ac
onca no naanasf and most mi schipvOus