The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-02-04

no prospect OF their beng able 10 agree. The
Judge sent word to the Jury to come into Court
They came, and the Foreman stated that they had
been out eighteen hours and that there was not
the least possibility of their agreeing, and they
therefore begged to be MISUNDERSTANDING the
following colloquy ensued between the Foreman
and the Judge:
Judge stump-The law and the facts have been fully
can't agree" F.. = = ~
Foreman-"woud the Court like to know how we
stand ~
Judge stump-"well, yes the Court would like to
know about that"
Foreman-"we stand eleven against one and have
stood that way for eighteen hours"
convince him ?"
Foreman-'It appears not sir we have used all
Another Juror-''The this man won't agree is
how pp " wv ~ '' '
Mr.. whitney-"The law is very plain in this case
your Honor there is reason why the Jury should not
agree" t
Judge stump-"The Court will arge the Jury"
1t is not without regret that we record case
the tendency of which cannot be otherwise than
to lower in public estimation the institution of
Trial by Jury. 1t is, perhaps, the best criterion
for determining the truth of facts and deciding
disputes between man and man, that has ever
been devised, and we would not willingly say any
thing calculated to impair its dignity or diminish
its usefulness. We hold with Sir WILLIAM BLACK
STONE, that " it is duty which every man owes to
''hs country, his friends, his posterity and
"himself, to maintain to the utmost of his power,
"ths valuable constitution in all its rights; to re-
"store it to its ancient dignity if at all impaired by
''the different value of property, otherwise de-
''vated from its first institution; to amend it wher
Sever it is defective; and above ALL to guard with
''the most jealous circumspection against the intro
'ducton of new and arbitrary methods of trial,
(which, under variety of plausible pretences,
'may in time, imperceptbly undermine this best
''pr"servative of English liberty" and not of
English liberty only-but our own. Seldom,
perhaps has this institution among ourselves been
subjected to a severer ordeal-challenged closer
scrutiny, or been more trumphantly vindicated-
than during the progress and in the sequel of the
late trials at Towsontown. Never, certainly
have the power and responsibility of Jurors been
better understood and more perfectly realized by
the community at large. Judge PRIcE-in his re-
marks addressed to MARION Crops, on the occa-
sion of his sentence-did not exaggerate in the
least the interest which everywhere felt in the
result of those trials. A different verdict from
that given in either case, he says, ''would
shave shocked the entire State" and Justly
adds-''the great trial by jury itself would have
'felt the shock" Yeti cannot be disguised
that, had those trials resulted differently, the an
nouncemeut of the fact would have excited
more indignation than surprise. The difficulty
which has been experienced in obtaining convic-
tions in capital cases-even under circumstances
which forbade the shadow of a doubt of
the prisoners guilt-and the absurd pro-
vision of the law-whch places it in the power
of single Juror, of obstinate temper and robust
physical frame, to nullify the convictions of the
other eleven, and so prevent a verdict or compel
compromise-have tended materially to weaken
public confidence in this method of trial Hence it
happened that although the Jurors in CROPS and
CoRRIE's cases did no more than their duty in the
Premises-and would have done less than their duty
had they acted otherwise-the fact that they should
have been found all able and willing to do as
much was deemed matter of public congratulate
ton The case to which we referred as having oc-
Cured on Saturday in the Criminal Court, illus
trates the nature of the influences that may some
times intervene to prevent unanimity even in
causes OF minor Importance A Juror, it appears,
refused TO unite with his fellows in verdict of
guilty" not because he entertained a belief in
the innocence of the accused, but because he was
opposed to policy of the laws for the violation of
which the indictment had been preferred. At least,
such is the explanation given of his conduct by
brother Juror, whose statement to that effect he
permitted to pass uncontradicted. With no other
or better reason-apparently-fo his dissent he
kept the entire Jury locked up for eighteen hours,
and finally compelled the Judge to discharge them,
thereby not only subjectng his colleagues to much
personal discomfort and annoyance to no purpose
and the State to the trouble and expense of another
trial. but actually converting the whole proceed
lngs OF the Court into farce, and making bur-
lesque OF the administration of justice That the
Judge did right in discharging the Jury, we Think
cannot be denied. To have remanded them to
Their room, with instructions to remain there until
they could agree, would have been more than
foolish-it would have been unjust 1t would have
been furnishing eleven men for the fault of one
which they could neither prevent nor correct-un-
less, perhaps, they had resorted to the extreme
measures adopted by a Pittsburg Jury, the other
day, who, under similar circumstances, admins
tered severe personal chastisement to an obstinate
individual who had prevented them from agree
ing. Of course, we do not wish to be understood
as approving of any such summary method of en-
forcing unanimity, any more than of the NONSENSE
cal and barbarous expedients formerly prescribed
by law and practised by Judges-for the same pur-
pose-but which, together with good many other
customs of antiquity, we have long since aban-
doned as contrary to good sense-such as COMPEL
ing the Jury TO remain without meat, drink, fire
'or candle" until they agreed upon their verdict
under the superstition that hunger, thirst cold
and darkness were conducive to an intelligent con-
sideration and impartial decision of the merits of a
cause-or carting Jury, who had failed to agree,
as Lord CAMPBELL tells us used to be done-to the
borders of the adjacent shire or county, and
there leaving them in a ditch. All this we
consider, nowadays, to have been in the
highest degree unreasonable and absurd
yet why require unanimity, if we ne
glect the means necessary to enforce it? For |
merly-the object was to compel Jurors to agree,
Now, the practice is to discharge them if they do |
not agree. And with what view With that, of |
course, of having another trial, and if need be.
another and another-untl twelve men shall be |
found concurring in the precise verdict which the
ten or eleven, it may be, were willing to find in
the first instance Some amendment of the law.
for the purpose of remedying state of things so
inconsistent and anomalous, is clearly needed.
How far that amendment should go, we are not
at present prepared to say-but in our Judgment
the plan which is talked of in England, and
which Lord CAMPBELL has promised, at the COM
ing session. to introduce into Parliament-of per-
hitting Judges, after the Jury have been out
certain specified time, and have failed to agree-to
take the verdict of ten Of them-might be advan-
tageously adopted. The subject, altogether, is
fruitful and suggestive one, and we conscious
that we have done nothing more than partially in
dictate of its phases, and those, perhaps by no
means the most important. We shall, therefore,
probably, recur to it again, and at an early day.
The latest intelligence from Utah brings con-
irmation of the views have heretofore expressed
with regard to the condition of affairs in that Ter
rito tI,o he a.