Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1866-06-09
JEFFERSON DAVIS.

The Points of Law Involved in His Trial
From the W ashington Intellgencer.
~ The recent references to the trial oil
Mr.. Davis have called public attention
to this subject, which very naturally in
a large degree interests the public mind.
The Indictment, in the usual form oftrea-
son, has been found by the grand jury,
in the United States Circuit Court at
Norfolk. Mr.. Davis is indicted under
the act of 1890, underwhich the penalty,
on conviction, is death. He could have
been indicted under the act of July 81,
1861, for a sedtious conspiracy, the
punishment of which is fine, not over
$4,000, and Imprisonment with or with
out hard labor not over six years. One
of the most important points Is the
drawing of the petitjury who are charged
with the trial OF the prisoner. The jury
is to be drawn according to lot or other
wise, 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 leftto the dis
cretion of the court, as in common law
The act of July l6, 1852, repeals so
much of the act Of 1870 as requires in
cases punishable with death that twelve
petit Jurors be summoned from the
county where the offense was committed
Under the act of June II, 1862, no per
son 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. Mr..
Davis cannot be tried by any of his con-
federates. His fate will rest entirely
with his political opponents. The jury
must be unanimous, or there can be no
verdict. This is the invariable rule of
the common law, and has existed time
whereof the memory Of man ruRneth not
to the contrary. The presiding judge
can rule authoritatiyely on questions OF
evidence as they may arise in the pro-
gress Of the trial; but as the jury always,
in criminal cases, return a general YER
dict of guilty or not guilty, they are
practically the judges of the law as 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 the Kings Bench that
the only question for the consideration
of the jury in criminal prosecutions for
libel was the fact Of publication ard the
truth of the inuendoes, and that the
Court alone was competent to determine
whether the subject Of the publication
was or was not libel. And it was for this
ruling of Lord Mansfield that the cele-
brated Junius so bitterly attacked Lord
Mansfield. Lord Camden, the friend Of
liberty, differed from Lord Mansfield,
and the matter was finally put to test by
the memorable act Of Parliament 81.
George Ill, known as Mr.. Fox's act,
which determined the law against Lord
Mansfelds Judgment, by expressly rec
ognizing the right Of the jury to deter
mine the facts and the law of the case
by a general verdict Of guilty or not
guilty.
The trial can only end in one of three
WAYS: |. By verdict OF guilty 2. By
verdict of not guilty. 3. By the inabil-
ity of the jury TO agree.
In the event Of this third alternative
arising, the first question which will
arise is whether Mr.. Davis will be en-
titled TO bail. The Constitution provides
that "in all criminal prosecutions the
accused shall enjoy the right to speedy
and public trial In determining
whether Mr.. Davis, after more than a
years close imprisonment, would be
entitled, in the event Of the disagree
ment Of the jury, TO be discharged on
bail, would be question Of legal discre-
ton, to be determined dy the judge. BY
the celebrated hdbeds corpus act Of 81
Charles IL, il was provided, sixth, " that
every person committed for treason or
felony, shall. if he require it, the frsi
week Of the next term. or the first day
Of the next session of Oyer and Termi-
ner, be indicted in that term or session,
or else admitted to bail, unless the kings