Abbeville press. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1860-1869, 1866-06-08
Ftona tho Washington Ateltigencer, Nay 25.
JEFF DAVIS.

TRIAL.
The rcocut references to the trial of Mr..
Davis have called pubic attention TO this
rutjcct, which very natural.y in largo de-
gree interested tho public mind. The in
dictment, in the usual form for treason, has
been found by the Grand Jury, in the Uni
ted States Circuit Court, at Norfolk. Mr.
Davis is indicted under the act Of 1890,
under which the penalty, on conviction, is
death. He could have been indicted un-
der the act Of July 81, 1861, for a sedi-
iious conspiracy, the punishment Of which
is fine, not over $1,000, and imprisou-
pent, with or without hard labor, not over
six years. One important point is the
drawing Of tho petit jury who are charged
with the trial Of tho prisoner. Tho jury is
to be drawn according to lot or otherwise,
according to the mode practiced i'll the
State fov selecting juries for the highest
courts Of law. The number Of jurors to
10 summoned is lef. 10 the discretion Of tho
Court, as at common law. The act of Ju.
]y 13, 1862, repeals SO much Of the act of
1850 as requires in cases punishable with
death that twelve petit jurors be summon
ed from the county where the offence was
committed. Under tho act Of June II,
1852, no person is allowed to sit on the ju-
~ who was in any degree Of completely
with the rebellion. This is an act of con.
trolling Importance, because it insurer that
the trial shall be before loyal jury. Mr..
Davis cannot bo tried by any of his con-
federates. His fate will rest entirely with
his political opponents. 4 jury must be
unanimous, or there can be no verdict, has
existed time whereof the memory Of man
funneth not TO the contrary. The presiding
Judge can rule authoritatively on questions
of evidence as they may arise IN the pro-
gress of the trial; but as the jury always,
in criminal cases, return general verdict
of guilty or not guilty, they are practical
ly the judges Of the law as we'll as the fact,
and there is no appeal from their decision.
Thsre has never been any exception to this
principle in the common law except, that
in cases Of libel it had frequently been de-
termined by the Court of Kings Bench
that the only question for the consid-
Grafton of the jury in criminal prosecu-
tions for libel, was the fact of publica-
tion and the truth of the innuen-
does, and that the Cour. alone was CON-
petent to determine whether the publica-
tion was or was not libel. And it was
for this ruling Of Lord Mansfield that the
celebrated Junins SO bitterly attacked Lord
Mansfield. Lord Camden, the friend Of
liberty, differed from Lord Mansfield and the
matter was finally put to rest by tho men,
orable act of Parliment 25, George Ill.,,
known as Mr. Fox's act which determined
the law against Lord Mausfeld's judgment,
by expressly recognizing the right Of the
Jury to determine the facts and laws of the
case by general verdict Of guilty or not
guilty.
The trial can only end in one Of three
ways Il. By verdict of guilty. 2. By
verdict Of not guilty. 3. BY the inability
of the jury TO agree.
1t the event fthis third alternative aris-
ing the first question which will arise it
whether Mr.. Davis will be entitled to bail
The constitut on provides that in all GRIM
inal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy
the right to speedy and public trial. Ip
determining whether Mr.. Davis, alter
more than a years close imprisonment,
would be untitled, in the event of the dis
agreement Of the jury, to be discharged on
bail, would be aquestion oflegal discretion,
to be determined by the judge. BY the
celebrated Habeas Corpus act of 81 Charles
H., it was provided, sixth, "that every per-
son committed for treason or felony, shall,
if he require it, the FIRST day Of the next
session of Oyer and Terminer, be indicted
IN that term or session, or else admitted to
bail, nnless the kings Witnessed cannot be
produced; and if not indicted and tried
in the second term or session, he shall be
discharged from his Imprisonment for such
imputed offence"
1t is not likely our judges would take a
more:favorable.yiew of the prisoners's appl>
cation than in The rule furnished by this stat
ute. The serious question would be, how
many terms Of the court have passed since
the prisoner was arst arrested2 His coun-
sci would in all probability contend that by
intendment Of Jaw United States courts