The sun., 1873-06-26
The Case % Miss Anthony and the Case
of Mr.. Stohes-N hatIs the Use OF "a
Jury


The Commercial Adrcrtiscr contends
that it wa, right and proper for judge
IIUNr to direct "A verdict OF Guilty in the
rasc of Miss AN1HuNY, because her counsel
admitted the fact of her voting.
1t might ju,t as wcll be COut,uded that
in STokE,' c7sc the Judge before whom
hc was tried would have been justified IN
directing II verdict against him on the
ground that his counsel did not deny that
he killed FISK!
On a plea OF Not Guilty the accused has "A
right to have tine whole case 20 to the jury;
aud although the Judge may charge fully
on the law, aud it Is his duty to do 80, vet
II the jury wholly disregard his charge,
aud on an the law and all the facts of the
case acIuit the prisoner, there il no power
on earth to 60 behind their verdict of Not
Guilty.
The very oath administered to the jury
says; You shall well and truly try, and
true doliyuuuce make between the United
states and the prisoner at the bar,
WbOm BOu AhdH bdro IN chdrg.."
"It /, the OATH says Judge ORMoNp of
Alabama. which has been administered
10 Jurc~, in criminal eases, from the
earliest records of criminal trials TO the
present day, both in England and the
United states"
Now how do the jury have the prisoner
IN charge if their whole province is merely
TO echo the order of the Court iu rendering
their verdict; IT i clear that II the Court
has right to convict Il prisoner iudcpeud-
rnt of the conclusions of n jury, and to
order a verdict of Guilty without reference
to their conclusions, then IA jury IS a wholly
mpcrtluous and useless piece ot judicial
machinery. If that is so, there is no use
in having iurics. Indeed this is the view
nf II correspondent who writes to protest
against the action of Judge IlUSr, because,
as he says, ii Is announcement for business
men to be obliged to sit On iures, and he
IS delighted with the prospect of relief
held out 10 them by the example al Canaan
dagua.
The tiiCa ObScfrCr, an able Journal pub
ished al Judge IlUNT's place Of rc,id, nee,
calmly but decidedly condemns the Judges
arbitrary and illegal assumption OF power
IN the following terms;
1--WE have sought the aGglce ~ the best legal
and Judicial minds Ia our state IN regard tu the
ruling of Mr. Justice " ARD HuNl IN tie case OF
SrsAN II. ANTHONY. While The written opinion
of the Justice Is very generally commended, hi-
action IN ordering verdict Of Guilty lo bo
catered, wtlnut giving the lury AN opportunity
oi SAVING whether II Is their verdict or not, l.
almost universally condemned. such "A ease
never before occurred IN the history OF our
courts, and tie hope " very general tuat IL never
VIII agtiu. BetWc.u the indictment and the
llu-m"nt stands the Jury, and there ls 40 way
known % ihe Law hJ winch the jury's power IN
criminal cases o. pronounce a general verdict II
HHiItS "l NIt hWlty can he ahrusAtrd. The
JUDGE may chUse the jury int the defence /,
lnNdhdi that II Is III lir clear duty to Gnd tho
prisoner guilty But beyond this lie cannot
properly 90. ile has n r'-ht 10 order the clcr.
10 onter verdict which l. not the verdict of the
jury. In doing this timing Mr. Justice lluNr out.
r;txg. tho rights OF SUSAN ID. ANIHoNY. II
vG I'D pro ably puzzle him to tell why he sub
n.ttGd the case of the inspectors To the iur,
tlier taking the case Of Miss ANTHONY out o
their hands.
We think the reason that the Judge
changed his course 50 suddenly, and sub
hitted the case Of the Inspectors TO th'