Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1858-10-27
TnE JURr QUESTION threading men among

by jury in criminal cases, in this country, has
been the loophole through which, in too many
cases, the guilty may escape. Wepoint proud
ly to the action Of jnries in our midst Of late,
as an exception tosthe general rule; for which,
BY theb may weSpot, after all, thank the reck-
lessness and violence of offenders against the
law, who had come TO carry matters with so
high hand? The disease has worked its own
remedy in our midst Nevertheless, we recog-
nize theinecessity Of general reform in the
manner in which American jnries discharge
their functions. Recognizing that necessity, We
commend TO the reader the following reflections
and suggestions of the New York Commercial
Adrerttssr ~ .,1 =
rs The UURY SYsTEN.--Lor Chief Justice Camp.
bell, rs our readers are aware has given notice
that he will introduce into the British Parlias
mental its next session, a bill dispensing with
the necessity for a [unanimo1s verdict of a Jury,
and making the verdict of majority of the jury
lialegal conviction oracquittal. The proposed
change will, doubtless, be strongly opposed in
England, and perhaps for. the present the move
ment will be unsuccessful The English people
are. notsonly mot given to change, but arespro-
verbal for Opposition to all Tadicalt changes and
cling to time honored institutions wonder
tul and sometimes amusing pertinacity. And
even Lord Campbell, with his acknowledged
Learning, purity and experience ASA judge will
find discourage ndperseverance taxed severely
in the prosecution of his avowedlph That
the tories the ultra conservatives of the coun-
try will oppose spch an inpoYation,t may be very
naturally expected; but it seems by no means
improbable that the Radicals, also-the party
who claim to be especially relofmers- will make
very strenuous opposition to the proposed
change.
The subject is destined begravely discussed
also on this side Of the Atlantic, for disagree
ments by Juries are of much greater frequency
here than in England. tits not trial by Jury,
however, that Chief Justice Campbell on that
sidesof the Atlantic, or rejecting men on this
seek or willseek to abolish q Nor would reflect
ing men consent that mans liberty or life shall
be- perilled or placed at the mercy of a bare
majority of a jury. The ain, is to secure to the
person on trial and tothe prosecution all the
advantages Of trial by Jury, without imposing
upon the jury themselves those onerous burdens
to which at present they are subjected. In
England, the law allows the judge to hold jury
in duress until they agree upon verdict, and
authorizes him to resort to Somesevere and al
most barbarous expedients to enforce such
agreement. This practice does not prevail here
to the same extent, though juries have been Sc
riousy burdened by the requirements Of the
bench in such cases Buthere the administra-
ton of justice is seriously embarrassed by the
very evil which Lord Campbelps bill is designed
toremedy. i5.
is notorious that one OF two Improbable
men upon q jury can defeat almost indefinitely
the. ends OF justice, and it is not without some
reason that the opinion prevails that one or two
such men are some times Struggled into the jury
iboxsfor the special purpose of.defeating Justice
Nothing has done more to. nnsettle the popular
confidence the jury system than this abuse of
it. 1t notorious that cases have resulted, not
once only but ottener, in disagreement of the
besno difference of opinion, and in which the
evidence was positively Irresistible. There are
other cases, doubtless. where the evidence is so
conflicting that intelligent and reasonable men
may well hesitate Mt pronouncing a verdict, and
there may beseVen Onaone side and five on the
other. With such cases as the latter, there
would be no twfSdomlin interfering. There are
DonG.tfde differences of opinion which should be
respected, and with which the law lorithe Court
should not interfere.
But for the former cases some remedy is un-
doubtedly required. From the very origin of
the trial by jury it was never contemplated that
the obstinacy ofsthe interests ofione or two men
should stand in the way of the rendition of a
verdict, whether of conviction OF acquittaL 1t
is now proposed in England that the verdict Of
ten Tor eleven men, out of the twelve compos-
ing the jury, shlll stand as the verdict of the
lsWhole We incline to think that the reform is
good one. and that it is needed with us quite
US mucn aS{1tSlS IN HnGl0nQs5s JuStlces would be
better administered under such a regulation.
The small class of men who hover around our
Courts, ready to take ehgag ementsas dissenting
Jurors, would find stheSp rotitof their occupation
gone, if not their occupation ITSELF 1t would
also afford relief to honest bona .1flze Jurors
whose convenience and time are certainly worth
consideration. Men Of business are often de.
tanned from twelve to twenty-four hours by the
crotchets. bstinacy ofoneg juror This is no
little hardship, and one that should not be infic
ted upon citizens who thus give their time to
llitgants in whose disputationt they have no con
eerp, and for the origin of which they are not
Irresponsible. The subjectat least deserves at
I:tention. saSsfl
TuR GREAT CnRss T-1torphg Kictori-
ous.15 The Rafisicorresp ofithe New York
Times, says the great match in chess between
Morp6y and Harrwitz has been decided in favor
of the former. The games stood, Q for Harwitz,
8 fors Morphy, and drawn. Tho fifth game
was won by. Morphy in twelve moves, when
HaEwitz renowned any further. pursuit. An
derson and Heyldebrandt have arrived in Paris
to play Morplly. s,
THE NswtYork ll2Posts says:sa Thesnurnberp
likenesses taken by geographic process daily
in hiscountry exceeds 'calctlatibn The .oTaS