The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-05-26

city Tor says; u was detailed at length IN all
the daily papers, and commented on for
several days after its occurrence. To confess
ignorance of the facts as told in the papers
is to admit virtually that one does not read
the daily journals habitually; and
how many men of average intelligence,
ft to sift facts from opinions and cOnjec-
lures, able to decide upon right and wrong
in matters of fact and law, neglect their daily
journal? If we are to consider tho Foster
jurors men of average intelligence, the an
swer is about one in hundred for we be-
lieve somewhat more than one thousand citi-
zens were summoned before the present Jury
was selected. The proportion is not flatter-
ing, certainly. If their order of intelligence
was not shown to be low by the examination
which they underwent, theirindecision of
character was clearly proven. Not one of
them answered the questions put to them
with clearness and positiveness. They were
certain only of their ignorance and imparti-
ality. 1t is usually supposed that men of in
telligence are less open to prejudices than
ignorant ones; but the law, under present
practices, construes knowledge to include
prejudice, and trusts its exposition to the
most incapable whom it is possible
to drum up. The preiudices
OF positive men are much to
be dreaded, but who would not rather trust
them, if honest and intelligent than men of
with the last artful lawyer who addresses
them The law which requires that jurors
should be ignorant of the facts of the case to
be brought before them does not demand
that they should never have heard or read of
it. They could not, perhaps, legally be
jurors if personally cogniZant of the facts,
but the hearing or reading of them need not
disqualify any man, for it is folly to suppose
that an intelligent Juror cannot separate in
mir Ia ha
hears on trial, and the narrative which he
may have read in the papers. Certainly an
unintelligent one could not; and, therefore
the greater reason for elevating the standard
of jurymen, instead of lowering it, as the
present legal practices tend.
Having selected the most ignorant Jurors
attainable, the next proceeding of the Court
is to mystify and confound them as much as
possible. They are chosen at random; they
are generally as ignorant of law as of fact,
and have to depend for the former on the
Court as completely as on the witnesses for
the latter. long course of legal study is
deemed necessary to qualify judge to ad-
minister the law in matters of property
merely; but twelve men without special
legal training, and sometimes without good
common-sehool education, are supposed to be
competent, after once hearing the law stated
to dispense justice in matters of life and
death. This seems the height of absurdity
and so, it would seem, skilful lawyers
consider it, for they never fail to COM
plicate their weakest causes by obtaining
a multiplicity of charges by the Court
For instance, the facts were plainly put
before the jury in the Foster case. There
was no chance to distort them; and few men
with common sense and that .intuitive know
ledge of justice possessed by all persons how
ever ignorant OF law, would have long hes-
tated. over them. But the skilful counsel of
the prisoner submitted to the Judge, and
through him the jury were charged upon, not
less than twenty three points of law. In
many of these the nice distinctions between
what is law and what is not were stated after
style which would have puzzled the best
read lawyer in Judge CardoZo's Court, and
must inevitably have confused any man of
average intelligence unread in criminal law.
We have nothing to say at this time of the
character of these charges. 1t is sufficiently
to our purpose that their number alone
would have confused as they seem to have
done this jury, any dozen men compelled to
consider them only from recollection after
one hearing
1t cannot be concealed from those who
have watched this Foster trial closely that
these practices of selecting and then confus-
ing jurors which have gradually grown up in
the New York courts have been employed to
save this assassin from the doom which the
law fixes for murder. They may have been
employed to no purpose, and we do not
mean by these remarks to imply any impro-
priety on the part of the counsel who have
used means which past practices have war;
ranted but cannot justify. 1t is the prac-
tices themselves, not those who employ
them, that we condemn. 1t has become a
serious question, in view of the possible and
probable escape of this murderer upon what
we cannot consider as better than legal quib-
bles, as to where these practices are to lead
us in the administration of law and justice;
and the sooner it is answered the better for
justice and society.