Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1870-07-13
THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY.


Through the kindness of friends, we
have copies of the bill organizing the
Criminal Court for this county. We have
heretofore called thu attention of our read
ers to its Objectionable features. Upon IA
more careful examination of the bill, we
see no reason to qualify, in any respect,
the criticisms we have before passed
As to the Judges salary, as we have
stated elsewhere, the county pays all of it.
As to the really dangerous provisions of
the bill-that relating to the selection of
the jurors-we quote the bill itself. The
fourth section reads:
"Be it further enacted That the Judge Of
said Criminal Court SHALL from time to time
appoint grand and petit juies to attend SAID
Court at its regular and special terms, and
iuries and witnesses thus attending shall receive
the same compensation, and shall be SUBJECT 10
the same regulations MS now prescribed by law
! in Circuit Courts of this State
Our contemporary of the wing, some
days ago. in noticing this objection, said,
"The bill provides thst the Judge shall or
der the Sheriff to summon grand and
petit juries to serve at each term of the
court" Yes, but it seems from the bill
that the Judgo "shall appoint grand and
petit juries." The Sheriff shall summon
them, but the Judge appoints" whom he
| shall summon.
We ask the attention of every honest
| citizen to this novel, dangerous and UNI
called for innovation of the old custom and
practice obtained, so far as we know, in
every State in this country. But says the
| WING, the Marshal summons the jurors in
the United States courts. Certainly he
does, but the Judgc docs not. The latter
knows nothing about the jury until the
panel is presented to him at the meeting of
the court by the clerk. The Marshal is a
different and independent officer from the
Judge. He holds his office by "A different
| tenure. The Judge is for life or good be-
havior The Marshal is subject to the
Presidents appointment. The Marshal is
not controlled by the Judge. The selec-
ton of jdrors, is therefore, not 'mdcr the
control Of the Judgc.
But says the Wing again, the defendants
in the Criminal Court are entitled to their
challenges. True but who selects the pan
nels? The bill says the Judge shall APP
point the grand and petit juries. May he
not claim under this right to appoint all
jurors summoned. If he has this power,
of how much protection is the right of chal-
lenge? If the judge names the panel and
is determined to pack jury, the right OF
challenge is soon exhausted and, therefore,
of slight protection. The Wing thinks we
arc "assuming fears" and that there is nc
danger. We have only to say in reply tc
this, that we want no law which is subject
to the great abuse named. Criminal
; Court has jurisdiction of the personal lib
crty and tires of our people. 1t is, there
fore, of the greatest Importance that such
Court be organized and established by {
) law which protects those inalienable anC
precious rights. We are opposed to thes'
features of this bill, because the records o
. judicial proceedings show that such dan
gerous powers are sometimes conferred up
on bad men, and then the consequence
are fearful.
: But what great reasonIhas provoked thi
: departure from laws and customs whicl
f the experience of ages attest to be worth!
: to be perpetuated" Why depart from law
which all admit to be safe and WISE ant
p embark in such new and dangerous eXpe
f riments? Will our contemporaries eX
= plain why the change was made? Tn
, people did not demand it. The bar di'
a not demand it. Did the Knoxville ring
, Did the Sunday night caucus? Did tn
, grand cyclops? The people want t.
:, know.
i |