Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1863-11-25
The New Jury system.

The provision Of our Constitution, dispens-
ing with the old requisite of unanimity in
finding verdict, and substituting the deci-
sion of three-fourths of the jury, is an inno-
walton, in advocating which, we believe we
stood alone among the press of the Territory.
The only article we have yet seen on the sub
ject coinciding with US appears in the Vir-
ginia correspondence Of the San Francisco
Bulletin of last Friday. Our Virginia cotem-
poraries appear to be either opposed to it or
are Indifferent upon it. The Bulletins cor
respondent agrees with us that the new sys-
tenn sis one Of those innovations that will
be likely to stand the test both of argument
and Of time. The same may be said of most
innovations that are not the result of passion
or partizanship. Changes which come like
that above spoken of ought rather to be call
ed adaptation than innovation"
The reasons which led to the principle of una
nimity of voice a requisite to juridica verdicts
have ceased in a large degree to exist, but the
system has not in that respect so promptly adapt
ed itself to new scenes, new Societies, ana new
political conditions. The origin of the rlrle Is
traced by curinns investigators to sort OF inn
pulsive sense of right said to have obtained long
ago among the semi.nomads of Central Europe,
so far qualifying the hasty conclusions of tunlUl
tuouS aSsemblages as to require, for condcmna-
tory sentence, the concurrent voice OF at least
twelve diSpaSsionate persons. That probably
was rule (and if so, Il very proper one) in those
primitive tribunals 1t does not follow that the
jury system of England asinherited by the States
of North. America has to seek that rude nativity
for any of its principles.
When the rule of requiring uQauimity of voice
in jury trials, engrafted on an already existing
system came to have the force of law in Great
Britain it was in defense of the liberties of the
subject against abuses of the powers OF the
sovereign. 1t was Il democratic, or popular, ele-
ment infused into and made forcefal, as correc-
tive to the royal prerogative then constantly
tending to tyranny, and often vindictve and re-
yenceful in its exercise. All legal process was
not only, as il still in form is in the name of the
crown. but it was liable to be, and often was in
fact as well as in name, the instrument of crown
or dynastic persecution. The jury then stood
between the subject and his sovereign. The
power of the sovereign was great; the force OF
the individual subject was rs nothing against It.
Hence came the rule that an accusation case must
be made so strong that unanimous verdict OF
the peers of the person unpleadcd, fairly impan-
neled as a jury, should pass judgment against
him.
Under our institutions. the case reverses itself.
Process does not run in the name of a sovereign
as contradistinguiShed from, or as master OF the
people, but il. the name of the people themselves.
The implicated person is not brought before 4 tri-
buual APPOINTED by IN eNtraneous power, but be-
fore u tribunal TO the appointment of which pro-
badly he himself contributed; NJ all events, q
tribunal that can know him in no lesser degree
than an equal, and no master for either one or
the other except the law is applicable alike to it
and him Formerly the subject, or rather So