The daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1863-1864, 1863-10-19

ONE of the grandest features of our free
institutions is that which secures to every
person charged with the commission of q
crime or misdemeanor an impartial tria
before Court sworn to do justice, and al
Impartial jury of his pers solemnly sworn
tod idle on the law and the evidence pre-
scented TO them. 1t is as much the duty o
the courts and juries to see that no limo
cent man is punished as to see that nj
guilty person escapes. The jury is selected
by impartial officers, in the manner most
likely To protect the interests and rights Of
the community, as well as the person ar
raignef No political or personal feelings
are permitted to control the selection of the
jurymep; nor are the jurymen permitted
to allow any political or personal feelings to
control them in making up their verdict
the law and the evidence alone being the
guides. The action of the courts and
iuries are final; and he who goes behind
that action and denounces these tribunals
for their findings, Is an enemy to onr free
institutions and society, because his action
tends to bring these tribunals into con
tempt and thus destroys the guards
thrown around society. Besides, it is not
manly or reasonable; for, is not a jury com
posed Of twelve impartial, intelligent men,
selected in the most impartial manner,
whyse sworn duty it is to receive from an
impartial court the law and from sworn
witnesses the evidence, more competent to
declare Just verdict thanis an excited pub
lie, or, forsooth, a politically biased editor.
Should not, at any rate, the unanimous
opinion of twelve men, with every cppor-
tunity of knowing aud understanding the
truth, have more weight than the opinion of
a single individual.
Suppose jury does not render a verdict
exactly in accordance with our own opn.
ions. tier won't there always be differences
ofopnion among the public p is it legiti-
mate for any Of us to attack the members
OF that jury, personally, or change their de-
cisiun to political or corrupt motives2 Take
late instance in our own court: Mr.. JONES,
the county jailor, Republican, in politics,
was arraigned before Grand Jury, most,
if net all the members of which were Re.
publcanS, charged with brutal conduct to-
wards female prisoner. Many people sup
posed him guilty yet the Grand Jury failed
to find bin against him. Yet nobody, or
newspaper, that we are aware OF, was so
mean as to denounce that Grand Jury or
the prisoner for this action, or sneakingly
attempted to make political capital out of it.
That was as it should be. How was it in
the case of COLLINS, arraigned for murder?
He was tried before Jury pretty nearly
evenly divided in political sentiment The
jury thought the law and the evidence JUS
tilted bringing in ola verdict of "JustiGable
Homieide;p but because the prisoner had
declared offer he had committed the homicide
that he would kill the first Abolitionst he
met, the jury are denounced for not hang
ing him. There is no pretence that he did
kill an .Abolitionist, or any one else, after
making the declaration; but, because of the
declaration he should forfeit his life. asfi $50
THIS whole thing of the public denuncia-
tioa of courts and juries for opinions, espe-