New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-07
~..n :-xc-A.AsaiI-
The Judge though, tia. wien jzrcr had said
verdict ougtt to be 10 patcuir way. it snsan1sd 70

sorqrahhcaticn.
Nj Stanton gued Ii ;; On 81 the .rssers taken TO-
gethef The ,,rc, va. qus'is't. Coat there be nsn
better qu,liS-d to art s. juror.
Jutg.-I thhk so, very essly. tL.ngAer.l De
qusi fed.
Exception .ske,,
stephen Cos.sr SD John Il. Mitchell had f9rned
opinions. disqualified.
Harmon Burns had 'ormed sn opinl7a.
John Philips dces cot think hinseE cOm2ete.: 70
eli as juror.
Mr. SisDtcL-Why lot
Jarcr-My opiticn is so G1ed that 10 net think 4
could. Disqualified.
John Miller and Reuben had formed opini5ss DE-.
qualified.
Franklin Tenney hsd formed az opinion.
To Mr.. Phillps-Tne opinion is founded on ramo';
should 20. Ike to cit juror being oppose 10 cs?IA
punish mer,. Disqualified.
J. p Bartholomew had formed an option. Dis
qualified.
Daniel b. Clarke had fixed opinion on all such
cases; be bad formed his opinion IN This csse on
ruuor; he did not know WI ether he could render sn
iu.psrti.l verdict if to justly the act SoOd make
bin an in partial juror he codld be one.
District-Attcrn.y-I suppose that falls within your
Horors ruling. Laughter.
The Juror cisqua!ihed.
jeremiah Hepburn had formed 81 opinion, and was
Disqualified.
William Coope, bad no. formed 81 opinion; 81 no
bias or prsjucce and conscientious scruples Qdai'
fed, and challenged Persmptorily.
The Judge here suggested ret, as the Martial had
summoned s.vspty.si1 men re had better not c' the
last ore.
M Philip. ssid the counsel for The defense had con-
ssuted.
Tie Judge understood that: but, in view Of the
practice in New York he thought It the safest plan not
to call the last man.
Mr. Philips hopsj ths. the practice Of NeF.York
was rot to be initiated here.
Mr. Graham said the case in NewYork referred to
the constitution Of the jury.
The Judge directed the Clerk no. to csll the last
n an in the box.
Joseph s. Wright had formed an opinion.
To Mr.. Phhps-rhe opinion was not entirely formed
on rumor or Newspaper statements. lie had never
converted With any of the witnesses. He could DIG
charge his Obligations as juror If sworn on The jury
To the Ju5ge-IIs had no impression, bias or preju-
dice.
To the District-Attouey-He could give an impair
tisl verdict according to the law aud evidence He
bad no Conscientious soIupos about capital punish
ment.
O. Have you property to the amount Of $500
juror Go not know a. to being worth $500.
Mr. Stanton objected 10 the question as TO property
qualification put by the Di.trict Attorney. lie did
not think the lack Of property any objection in the
District Juror. When the question wss fret msie
in this cause the oourse for the defense taken by
surprise They were aware that the statute Of Mary
land in ts colonial condition did impose property
qualification but were not aware that the United
States had ever made an objection to juror on thi,
ground which s so dishoBorsble 10 the principles on
which the Government rests The District Attorney
had never n ade tina, objection in other criminal CASES.
and the counsel for the defense supposed it would not
be made here. This objection was made under the
act of the Assembly Of the Colony OF Maryland,
passed in October l777. Prior to that time under the
Government of Great Britain the qasiit ,aton of
a Juror had been made both as TO the amount aud
quality of his estate Freehold property to particl-
ar value was requirsd but early ~ ideas had
Progressed fer tha. the absurdity Of requiring
freehold qualification was abolished. Nevertheless,
there WAS still requires certain property quafioi-
ton lie need not trace the origin OF that idea. lie
did not know that there WAS single State of the
Union which required this property qualification for
Jurors. He asked the District Attorney WHISTLER
property qualification required 10 the State Of
Maryland.
Dstict-AtoneJ-I do not know whether there is
or not.
Mr. S.snton-The prisoner is arrsgped under the
laws Of the United States and unless the jurisdiction
and severe gnty OF the United States imposes prop
ety qualification its jurors, such qualification
cen be imposed. Toe only requirement isthat they be
free spd imp vital 'rers The acts affecting the ques
ton will be found under George Act G Sept u,
1889, which declares that 10 cases punishable with
death the ts ,hsll be hsd in the county, or where
not 80 had that twelve petit Jurors shall be summoned
thence and shall be drawn by lot or otherwise IN each
State according to the mode Of forming Juries therein
The law SIMPLY indicates the designation ofjurors. and
provides thst they shsll have the same qualifications
required jurors by the laws Of the Safes. That
was all the qualification which Congress imposed on
Jurors. IL this State Are ~s now portion of the
State Of Maryland aud have We imposed on us TIE
laws OF III BY no means. Ths territory belong,
TO TIE Upitsd Safes sud the jurisdiction ofthe United
States alone dwells here. On the org snzaon Of tbi.
DistIi6t Il provided that the laws of Virginia. as
then existrg, should be- extended to that portion OF
the strict ceded to the United States, ard so with
regard to that portion ceded by Msylsn3, but this
srpled 10 civil not t. criminal procedure. Tee set Of
the Goth July 1910, amended the set of 1900 which
provio ed that jurors 10 in the courts OF the
Tilted States should, in conformity with the prsc-
tice in the Sts.e or District, lie designated
by lot or otherwise. is operation was to give validity
to the practice then prevailing. The act Of 1910 pro-
vded that jurors, to serge in'C,uits Of the United
States in each State should have such qualifications
as are required Of jurors to in the highest State