The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1866-05-30


volved In his Trial.
From the Washington Intelligenccr, Hay 25.]
The recent references to the trial OF Mr.. Davis
have called public attention to this subject, when
very naturally in large degree interests the
public mind The Indictment, in the usual form
for treason, has been found by the Grand Jury,
in the United States Circuit Court at Norfolk. Mr..
Davis is indicted under tile act Of 1850, under
which the penalty, on conviction, is death. II, ne
could have been indicted under the act Of July 3l
1861, for seditious conspiracy, the punishment
of which is q fine not over $4,000, and imprlson'
ment with or without hard labor, not over SIX
years. One of the most important points IS the
drawing of the petit jury who are charged with
the trial of the prisoner. The jury s TO be drawn
according to lot or otherwise according to the
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
16, 1862 repeats 80 much OF the act OF PT69 as re-
qures, in cases punishable with death, thst
twelve petit jurors be summoned from the county
where the offence was committed. Undert the act
of June IT, 1862, no person is allowed to sit on the
jury who was in any degree of completely with the
rebellion. This is an act OF controlling lmp0t-
tance, because it insures that the trial shall be
before loyal Jury. Mr.. Davis cannot be tried by
any of his confederates. His fate will rest entire
ly with his political opponents. The Jury mus1
be unanimous or there can be no verdict. -
This is the invariable rule OF the'cammon law,
and has existed time whereof the memory ~ n,an
runneth not to the contrary. The prssidng luase
can rule authoritativey on quest4ns OF eYiuehue
as they may arise in the progress os she trial uu.
as the jury always, IN criminal cases, LEU. ioSu' aa
general verdict Of guilty or not guilty, iIey to
practically the judges Of the law as well as Inc
Fact and there is no appeal from their,declslon.
There has never been any exception to this prinr-
ciple in the common law, except that IN cases M y,
libel it had frequently been determined 6y she
Court of Kings Bench that the only question 1or
-. ;1a.ot of in
tions for libel was the fact OF publication ana tnae
of the innuendoes, and that the Court alone was s
competent to determine whether tue su6Jec1 ol
tho publication was or was not libel. anu ~ was
for this ruling OF Lord Mansfield that the ceie-
brated Junius 30 bitterly attacked Lord Mansfield.
Lord Camden, the friend of liberty, differed from
Lord Mansfield, and the matter was finally put ~ 70
rest by the memorable act of Parliament 81,
George III, known as Mr.. Fox's act a wnicn de-
termined the law against Lord Mans6eld's 1udg'
ment, by expressly recognizing the RI ht OF tne
iury TO determine the facts and law Of the case
by q general verdict Of guilty or not guilty.
The trial can only end in one OF three ways: l.
By BS gSras' hs 0ss sn o tho y Jury sS o
In the event Of this third alternative arising the
first question which will arise is whether Mr. Da-
Wis will be entitled to bail, The Constitution pro
vides that .in all criminal prosecutonsthe aGcn, ,
sed shall enjoy the right to 8 speedy and pnnnc
trial" In determining whether MIR. Davis, after
more than a years close Imprisonment, would ne
entitled, in the event Of the disagreement Of the
fury. to be discharged on bail, would pc ques-
ton or legal discretion, to be deter mined by tue
Judge. By the celebrated Hdbeds Corpus ACT OF
81 Charles H., it was provided, sixth, 'that every
person committed for treason or felony, shall, u
he require it, the first week Of the next term, OF
the first DAY Of the next session OF Oyer and Ter
miner, be indicted in that term or session, or else
admitted to bail, unless the kings Witnesses can
not be produced; and If not indicted and tried IN
the second term or session, he shall be discharged
from his imprisonment for such imputed ofence.
!. 1t is not likely our Judges would take less
favorable view OF the prisoners application than
in the rule furnished by this statute. The serl-
ous question would be, how many terms of the
rested2 His counsel would, in all probability,
contend that by intendment OF law the United
States courts were holding their regular terms
for the last twelve months in the State OF gif-
ginia, or at least might have done SO. further
provision of the Constitution might, GernaPs'
also, in the event OF q disagreement On nne jury,
saS ss sSvSasa sa a ss f sse sha any perS
son be subject for the same offence to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb" The meaning ol
this rule is, that defendant is in legal jeopardy
the moment petit jury Is charged wlth the Seca, @
sion of HIS case But though tnere n mas oeen On
some difference OF opinion on the point, it may De
assumed that when the jury are discharged from
the further and final decision Of the case, because
of their inability to agree, the prisoner may be
held 10 be tried anew. At one time in England,
where the jury could not agree on capital case,
the Judge, instead Of discharging them at the end
of the term, had them csrted around the circuit
with him. This practice, however, is exploded.
In case, then, OF the inability of the jury to agree
the utmost the prisoner could ask, from that fact
alone, would be the right to be out OF prison on
hail