Weekly Trinity journal. [volume] (Weaverville, Calif.) 1857-1972, 1866-07-07
from the Washington Latelligencerl
The Trial of JEFF. Davis-Summaryo OF tho
Points Inv lved.


have called public attention to this subject, which
very naturally, in large degree, interests the
nublic mind The indictment in the usual form
for treason has been found by the Grand jury,
in the United States Circuit Court at Norfolk.
Davis is indicted under the Act of $780, under
which the penalty, on conviction, is death He
could have been indicted under the Act of July
81, 1861. for seditious conspiracy. the punish
ment of which is n fine, not over $4,000, ana
imprisonment, with or without hard labor, not
over six years.
One of the most important points is the draw
ing of the petit jury, who are charged with the
trial of the prisoner. The jury is to be drawn
according to lot, or otherwise according to the
mode practiced in the State for selecting juries
for the highest courts of law. The number OF
Jurors to be summoned is left to the discretion of
the Court as at common law. The ACT OF July
l6, 1862, repeats so much OF the Act OF 1853 as
requires, in cases punishable with death, that
twelve petit jurors be summonedfrom the county
where the offence was committed. Under the
Act of June l6 862. person is allowed to SIT
on the jury who was in any degree OF completely
with the rebellion This is an Act of controlling
importance because it insures that the trial shall
be before loyal jury.
Davis cannot be tried by any of his confed-
crates. His fate will res: entirely with his po-
litcal opponents. The jury must be unanimous,
or there can be no verdict This is the invaria-
BILE rule of common law, and has existed time
whereof the memory of man runneth not the
contrary. The presiding Judge can rule author
itativey on questions OF evidence as they may
arise in the progress OF the trial. but as the jury
always in criminal cases, return a verdict OF
guilty or not guilty, they practically the
Judges of the law well as the fact, and there
is no appeal from their decision. There has
never been any exception to this principle in the
common law, except that in cases of libel it had
frequently been determined by the Court Of
Kings Bench that the only question for the con-
sderation of the jury, in criminal prosecutions
for libel. was the fact of publication and the
truth of the inneundoes and the Court alone was
competent to determine whether the subject of
the publication was or was not libel. And 1t
was for this ruling Of Lord Mansfield that the
celebrated Junius so bitterly attacked Lord Mans
field Lord Camden, the friend of liberty, differ
ed from Lord Mansfield and the matter was final
ly quito rest by the memorable Act of Parliament
of 80 George III, known as Mr. Fox's Act, which
determined the law against Lord Manshelds
judgment, by expressly recognizing the right OF
the jury to determine the facts and law of the
case by general verdict of guilty or not guilty
The trial can only end in one of three ways:
l. By verdict of gnilty.
2. BY verdict of not guilty
3. By the inability of the jury to agree.
In the event of this third alternative arising
the first question which will arise is, whether
Davis will be entitled to bail. The Constitution
provides that &C in all criminal prosecutions the
accused shall enjoy the right to speedy and
public trial. In determining whether Davis,
after more than years close imprisonment,
would be considered, in the event ofthe disagree
ment of the jury, to be discharged on bail would
be question of legal discretion, to be determin-
ed by the Judge. By the celebrated Habeas Cor
pus Act of 81 Charles H., it was provided, 6:
- That every person committed for treason or
felony SHALL if he require it, the first week of the
next term, or the first Jay of the next session Of
eyer and Termner, be indicted in that term or
session. or else admitted to bail, unless the Kings
witnesses cannot be produced and if not ndict
ed and tried in the second term session, he
shall be discharged from his Imprisonment for
such imputed offence" 1t is not likely our
judges would take less favorable view Of the
prisoner application then in the rule furnished
by this statute. The serious question would be
how many terms of the Court have passed since
the prisoner first arrested? His counsel
would in all probiity contend that by intend
ment of law United States Courts were holding
their regular terms for the last twelve months
in the State of Virginia, or at least might have
done
A further provision of the Constitution might
perhaps also, in the event of a disagreement OF
the Jury, be invoked in behalf of the prisoner
that one which sets forth as follows - Nor shall
any person be subject for the same ofense to be
twice put in jeopardy of his life Or limb The
meaning of this rule is, that defendant is in
legal jeopardy the moment petit jury is eharg-
ed with the decision of his case. But though
there has been some difference of opinion on the
point, it may be assumed that when the jury are
discharged from the further and final decision OF
his case because of their inability to agree, the
prisoner may be held to be tried anew At one
time in England, where the jury could not agree
on a capital case, the Judge, instead OF dlscharg
ing them at the end of the term, had them carted
round the circuit with him. This practice, how
ever, is exploded
In case. then of the inability of the jury TO
agree the utmost that the prisoner couid ASK
from that fact alone, would be the rlght 10 y"
out of prison on bail.