The Grenada sentinel. [volume] (Grenada, Miss.) 1868-1955, 1868-05-02
JEFFERSON DAVIS.


hOhcfeI Uhc uefll may nave DeeD |
shamed when Fernando Wood spoke
the truth of the present ''infamous
Congress-" His Sulphuric Highness
must certainly have held up his head
and ceased to blush for his Radical
friends, when he read the following in
the morning papers a few days since
"Be it enacted, &c, That no person
shall be held incompetent to act as
juror upon any grand Jury by reason
Of having formed or expressed an
opinion upon the matter to be sub.
mitted to such grand Jury for in,
vestigatiOn founded upon public ru-
NOR, statements in public journals,
OF the common history of the times, |
provided he be otherwise competent, |
and on his oath declare, and itappear
to the satisfaction of the court that,
Notwithstanding such opinion, he can
and will act impartially upon the mat,
ters to be submitted, and true pre-
sentiment made according to the eyi.
dence; but the court may, in its dis
erection, set aside any such person.
"Sec, 2. That in trials for offenses
against the United States no person
shall be held to beincompetent to act
as a juror by reason of having formed
or expressed an opinion upon the
guilt or innocence of the accused,
founded upon public rumor, state-
ments in public Journals, or the com.
mon history Of the times, provided he
be otherwise competent, and upon his
oath declare, and if it appear to the
satisfaction of the court that, Eot-
withstanding such opinion, he can and
will impartially try the accused upon
the crime charged in the indictment
or information, and true verdict give
upon the evidence to be produced
on the trial, but the Court may, in
its discretion, set aside any such
Juror"
The clause in the Federal Consti.
tuition which declares that, ''in all
criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right to speedy and
public trial by an impartial jmy,"
has been pretty generally understood
as intended to place the great com
mon law right of trial by jury be-
yond the danger of being tampercd
with by just such knaves and igno-
|ramuses as have conCocted the pre-
cious couple of sections cited above
from last weeks doings in Congress.
Now, what is an impartial jury"
what did the expression mean at cons
mon law, aud what does the constitu-
ton mean by it? Simply this A
tribunal composed of twelve disinterr
ested and unbiased men that is, they
must have no pecuniary or other in
terest in thequestion to be tried, and
their minds must be free from all pre-
judice or preconception of opinion.
The formation and expression of an
opinion was ground of principal
challenge" at common law. A man
whose mind was made up beforehand
was deemed not an Impartial juror
, and it is the common law right oi
trial by an impartial jury" as We
have already iDtimated, that the con-
stitution seeks to preserve.
/ Juries at the outset, were sum,
4 moned from the yicinage, it is true
S because, it was supposed, they nigh
!. thus have some personal knowledg,
), of the suitors, as we'll as the matter
to be investigated. But, in the pro
gress Of common law-for no NOR,
than Rome was it built in day--it
come to be established that case
n should be tried by impartial men
J. on testimony addueed in open cour
q and not on the private, and, oftime
= secret knowledge Of individual jurors
70 1t was on the right of this mode Q
i trial, 50 perfected by experience, tina
i was intended to be secured by th
! constitutional guaranty to which "
10 have called attention.
ID Congress, however, undertakes I
70 declare that the formation and CS
" preston Of an opinion shall not di'
te qualify a juror, provided he wi
or swear, and the court shall beliey
X that Notwithstanding such opinion, l
es can and will impartially try the part
B. accused. In plain English, a mo
ct who comes into the jury-bOx with
n. biased mind, and consequently, is NJ
i'll Impartial, either in the legal
ae common sense of the term, sha
s, nevertheless, be suffered to rema
d. there, provided he and the judge co
re cur in the opinion, that, notwithstan
.e- ing his partiality, he will act with il
lot partiality. We scarcely think eth
ad the common laws or the CONSTITUTE
IN, designed to leave the question Of t
en- extent to which a juror is likely to
ol controlled by admitted prejudice
70 either to his own OF another's decisit
Vi. No human being can determine mu
Iet less can another determine for him
,on how far his judgment may be in d.
ger Of being warped by prepOss'
.ions, whether we'll or ill-founded.
,ck partial juror might decide imparti
me iy; he might easily swear to do
hat the Judge might believe he wou
w and yet the law has hitherto held
Of unsafe to trust him. With gen
dc Gus confidence, this new act takes
von word, and-the chances,
a, But we have not yet alluded to
fol most singular feature Of the bill,
1.-THE one that most completely just