Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-04-27
JEFFERSON DAVIS.
Packing a Jury to Convict
Him.

From the New York Freeman's Journal and
Catholic Register
However the devil may have been
shamed when Fernando Wood spoke the
truth of the present Infamous Con-
gress," 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 morn
ing papers a few days since
"Be ii enacted, etc, That no person
shall be held incompetent to act as a juror
upon any Grand Jury by reason of hav-
ing formed or expressed an opinion upon
the matter to be submitted to such Grand
Jury for investigation founded upon pub
lie rumor, statements in public journals,
or the common history of the timesypro-
vided he be otherwise competent, and on
his oath declare, and it appear to the
satisfaction of the court that, notwith,
standing such opinion, he can and will
act simpartially upon the matters to be
submitted, and true presentment made
according to the evidence; but the court
may, in its discretion, set aside any such
person.
Sec 2. That in trials for o6enses
against the United States no person shall
be held to be incompetent to act as a
juror by reason of having formed or ex-
pressed an opinion upon the guilt or
innocence of the accused, founded upon
public rumor, statements in public jour-
nails, or the common 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, not
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 Constitution
which declares that, in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right 80 a speedy and public trial by an
impartial jury" has been pretty gen.
orally understood as intended to place
the great common law right of trial by
jury beyond the danger of being tam
pered with by just such knaves and
ignoramuses as have concocted the pre-
cious couple of sections cited above from
last weeks doings in Congress
Now, what is an simpartial jury =
what did the the expression mean at COM
mon law, and what does the Constitution
mean by ita Simply thisi A tribunal
composed of twelve disinterested and un-
biased men; that is, they must have no
pecuniary or other interest in the ques-
ton to be tried, and their minds must be
free from all prejudice or preconception
of opinion. The formation and express
sion OF an opinion was ground of "princi-
pal 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 of trial
by an impartial jury" as we have al
ready intimated, that the Constitution
seeks to preserve. =.
Juries, at the outset, were summoned
from the Uieindge, it is true, because, it
was supposed, they might thus have
some personal knowledge of the suitors,
as well as of the matters to be inyesti-
gated. But, in the progress Of common
law-for no more than Rome was it built
in g day-it come TO be established that
cases should be tried by impartial F."
men, on testimony adduced in open
court aud not on the private, aud, oft.
times secret knowledge Of individual
Jurors. 1t was on the right to this mode
Of trial, so perfected by experience, that
was intended to be secured by the con-
stitutional guaranty to which we have
called attention.
Congress, however, undertakes 10 de-
clare that the formation and expression
Of an opinion shall not disqualify ju-
ror, provided be viii swear, and the court
shall believe that, Notwithstanding such
opinion, he can and will impartially try
the party accused. In plain English,
a man who comes into the jury box with
biased mind, and consequently, is not
impartial" either in the legal or com
mon sense Of the term, shall, neverthe-.
less, be suffered to remain there, provided
be and the judge concur in tb< opinion,
that, Notwithstanding bis parhaliiy, be
will act with impartiAliiy. We scarcely
think either TIE cs@7os lave or tSs
Constitution designed ts sesye the Ques-
| ton of the extent to which Juror il
likely 70 be controlled By admitted pre-
iudices. either TO his own or enothef'I
decision. No hnman being can deter
! r,in. much less can smother determins
I - - -, e. hfs iudrmcut nav h