Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1872-02-14

0N@
of no such evidence. The criminal
code which repealed it was framed by
a man as eminent in criminal law as
the author of the act of 1850. The
code passed the Senate by a unani-
NOUS vote. The law of 1860 had a
fair trial, and was repealed because it
was Judged unwise legislation. In
| telligent jurors could be had in Ohio
under the present law. Only men
were excluded who had formed set
tied convictions as to the guilt or in
nocence of the accused. The title of
the House bill under discussiC 8 a
misnomer. 1t ought to be e.. Il a
bill to insure the conviction of every
! person accused of crime.
Mr.. Smith gave a history of the
jury law of 1850. It was in operation
for nine yesFs, and its eonstitutiOnali-
ty was passed upon by the Supreme
/ Court. MI Smith saidi if he wa to be
| tried for a criminal offense, he would
wish to be tried by twelve Of the most
intelligent lawyers in the State, and
he would not care what their previ-
Gus impressions were. The object of
the bill was to secure the most intelli-
gent and impartial men on the jury.
Mr.. Updegraf said lit was conso-
! nRnt with the genius of u institu-
tions to have regard in legislation to
J the voice of the peOple-to what the
| Senator from Rrumbull sneeringlP
calls popular clamor.n Popular SEN
timent is the fountain and source of
all our just powers. The Senator
from TuscaFaWas eulogiZes the COM
mon law as the wisdom of ages. That
common law allows any husband to
fog his wife, and Blackstone says the
"loWer rank Of the people were always
fond of the common law, and still
claim this ancient privilege. Laugh
ter. Under George il. "no man could
sit on a Jury who had not q freehold of
eIO or a lease of $40 anDuallY, or
lived in a house with fifteen GOtRdOLUs.
TLaughter.J Here1is the wisdom of
the ages. But the practical wisdom Of
the present sits those hoary and feud-
al barbarisms and adapUs them to the
needs of this progressive age. Practi-
cally, the present law constantly re-
suits in delays, In expeDse, and finally
in excluding intelligent and Impair
tial men from juries, and filling the
jury-bOx with twelve of the most ig-
norant in a county, and Of course the
verdict is simply a reflex OF their
average preiudices.
Mr.. Murphy ssiq the subject had
been e~laborately discussed, leaving
but little for him to say. He was in
favor of the bill as il came from the
House. Under the present law the
most intelligent citizens were ex-
elGded from juries in criminal cases,
while that class Of persons known as
=" professional jureFsH we're almost GER
tain to get into the Jury boz, because
upon being asked whether they had
formed an opinion, they would answer
in the negative. Under this bill a
Juror would have no inducement to
state that he had not formed an Opin-
ion. Tie bill would exclude that class
of ignorant and dull men who are
admitted under the existing lazy,
Mr.. Gardner referred TO the exist
ence of Judge Lyneh's court, and said
its existence was owing to the want
of Just such Jaw as was proposed by
the House bill now pending. 1t was
owing to the failure of justice I'm nOtO-
rious criminal cases, caused by the
ignorance and corruption of juries.
The evidence adduced on the trial of
9 case was very different from the
reports ia newspapers. Reading such
reports did not hinder 9 man from
weighing impartially tbs egidence
given in court.
Mr.. Patrick said the jury law of
1860 was not enforced in all parts of
the State. The result of the practical
application of that law was that under
the clause leaving the admission of a
Juror to the discretion of the court, a
Judge would shrug his shoulders and
say that he was not satisfied of the
competency of the juror and would
abide by the common Law rule. Leav-
ing the competency Of a juror 70 the
discretion of a judge, was to produce
uncertainty it the administration of
the law, and make ii a dead letter.
Mr.. Brinsmade was opposed to the
amendments as made by the Judi
cisry Committees he had no doubt of
the constitutionality Of The laW-the
Supreme Court had passed upon o
similar law in the "a of Cooper VS..
The State. It had been claimed by
Senators that the bill, should 1t be-
come a law, would sweep away old
barriers and landmarks; he thought
if these barriers were only built on
ignorance or prejudice, that It was
time they should be swept away, and
S law enacted based upon principles
of right, justice and intelligence.
Mr.. Jones, Of Licking said the
House bill under debate was not cal
culated to insure the best interests of
the State and defendants. All Sena-
49, .11-..1 - 1pfDar1n IN thu UfnuT
that If q man bad q fixed and settled
opinion as to the guilt O. innocence of
the accused, he should not sit upon
the jury. The opponents Of the bill
simply asked that justice should be
melted out to both the State and to
defendants. The people were not dis
satisfied with the law as it now
stands. If n man should state under
oath that he had formed and now
entertains the opinion that the Ro-
cused is guilty of murder In the'frst
degree, no man could say that he was
a fit man to sit as q juror on the trial
of the defendant.
The vote was then taken on the first
amendment to the House bill reported
by the judiciary Committee, and re-
suited:
Yeas-Messrs. Beach, BoeSel, Gard
ner, Holden, Jenner, Jones of Lick
ing, Sones of Trumbull, Morris, New
man, Patrick, Thompson IL.
Nays-Messrs. Amos, Beavis, Bell,
Brinmade, Easement, Gage, Har-
desty, Hart, Howard. Kemp, Knox,
Leeds, Mcdowell, Murphy, Nash,
Parker, Putnam, Schif, Smith, Slim
son, UpdegraE, Wales, Wright.-&.
So the amendment was net agreed
to.
The question was then taken on
striking out the proviso in the House
bill in regard to newspaper reports,
end resulted-yeas 5, nays %. So the
Senate refused to strike out.
The amendment making ii a cause
of challenge that the Juror is an hab-
itual drunkard was agreed to. Yeas
", nays 7.
The bill was then read the third
time, and passed by the following
vote;