New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1873-03-20

JUDGE, bias, and even Partially. They act
as occasion requires; they have no profes-
sional character to sustain and assign no
reason for their verdicts, and ii can rarely
happen that their individual or personal char
acters are at stake. In many instances they
are unsuited by previous habits to decide upon
the effect Of legal instruments and other mat
tiers connected with legal rules and presump-
tons. We need not, therefore, wonder that
juries so frequently disagree.
Then this modern rule or practice of dis
charging jury if they fail to agree and de-
ferring the trial to some future time is mani
testify Illegal and injurious to suitors. Illegal,
because we have constitutional guarantee
that men accused of crime shall have a
speedy, public trial by jury. But by requir-
ing unanimity we violate this provision of the
Constitution at least in spirit, by causing un-
necessary delay.
The juror is sworn to give a true verdict
according to the evidence. Suppose, and it
is possible, especially when there is intricacy
or contradictory evidence, that he differs
from his colleagues in his conclusions, he
cannot, as the law stands, discharge his duty
by giving his verdict individually. He must,
therefore, either perjure himself by agreeing
to verdict he believed false and unjust, dis
agree and have the jury discharged, or COM
pei them to remain with him in their retire
ment and submit to the process devised by
the wisdom or barbarsm Of our ancestors to
enforce unanimity.
1t is, however, possible by few changes
to preserve all that is valuable in this mode
of trial, while we remove the defects indi-
Gated. 1t might prove specially servleeable
were law enacted that the verdict shall al
ways be given in writing, signed by the ma
jority of the jury. Thus, instead of forced
and unreal unanimity as at present, we should
obtain the true sentiments of jurors.
In effecting the change Of long-established
practices am aware that various difficulties
may arise to prevent contemplated benefits.
But by the improvements suggested every
person concerned in the administration of
justice would reap neutrality-suspicious., law
yers, jurors, and the public. And if real diff
ficulties should appear they must indeed be
formidable to overcome the urgent necessity
for protection of individual morality and pub
lie justice.
l appeal, therefore, to our legislators,
judges, and other officials whether compul-
sorry unanimity in their decisions would not
be most oppressive and intolerable burden !;
whether it would not disturb their delbera-
tons, Illustrate their endeavors for the public
good, and effectually impede the administra-
tration of justice. Jurors are men of like
passions and feelings with themselves, not
perhaps so well instructed, and therefore less
likely to weigh the opposite reasons in a
doubtful case, and be unanimous in cases de-
termined upon small preponderance of rea-
son or evidence. Remember that on points
of law as we'll as fact the highest authorities
sometimes disagree. Relieve the juror from
the necessity Of compromising with his con-
science for forced assent to verdict he in
his soul disapproves, and no longer compel
him to seem to commit perjury in the dis
charge Of public duty, which should be the
farthest removed from even the semblance of
a crime so offensive and odious.
JAS. H. SMITH.