The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-04-10
."rHE RIGHTS AND POWERS DE
JURIEs.n

ent purpose, 1t may be necessary TO recall
the leading facts of the case as they are re-
ported, and as we believe them to be true.
This man was prosecuted for violation
OF the statute relating TO the traffic in in
toxcating drinks ii is alleged, and ap-
pears to he undisputed that thirty-sx dis
tinct offences were proven against him.
subjecting him, on a verdict of guilty, TO
fine of three hundred and sixty dollars
his counsel claimed, among other things
az proposition Of lao, "that even if the
supreme court had decided that such was
not the law, the jury were not bound by it,
being judges of the law and facts, and that
they had the power to annihlatc the stat
ute itself MS far as this case was con-
ccrncd"-in other words, as we understand
it. that in criminal cases, jurors were
Judges of the law as well as the facts;
that taking this view Of the matter the
jury acquitted the accused, and be was ac-
cOrdngly discharged. In referring tosomc
comments of The Burlington Free Press we
take occasion To say that If We understood
the ntcn. and meaning of tho proposition
above quoted if its true intent and mean-
ing-aud We cannot see thai il has any
other-was that in criminal ca-e, ihc jury
Herc the sole judges Of the law ~ well rs
the facts, then there was nothing rStraur-
binary Ia the propositions; Ilnt i, was
nearly As old as the English llN and was
one nf the safeguards of our lilrriy. We
do not propose. any further, to repeat oui
argument. but this much seemed necessary
10 p full understanding of the queries put
In u.s. and of the reply we intend 10 make
thereto y word further. 1--WE do not
propose to argue this cage" any more than
the Frce Press does We do not propose 70
defend the jury or the attorneys in The
case; but the question having been pro-
pounded to lis in good faith, AZ we believe.
We will proceed 10 give the reason for the
faith that s within us, promising, howcy-
err, that We do i as layman, not as a
lawyer.
The Free Press copies the major aud ma.
ierial parts of our article, and then COM
ments, or rather enquiries as follows
. But we should like to know If this right
= of jury to be judges OF the law is with
. out limitations. Is it anything more
" than right to judge of the law in cases
" where there is fair question what the
" law is p? Does it give TO juries the right
. TO ''annihilate" statuesr Has jury the
" right to count for naught the decisions
" of the highest courts and to put "a
:" place of the law, as iudicially cxpound-
" ed, their own idea of what they would
" like the Law to he? Have iuries the
" right to accept the statements of unscru-
pulous lawyers, in place Of the recorded
- decisions of the courts and TO the ahso-
= " lutte notification of the plainest provi-
" Slons of law If so, of what use are
- courts of law We ask for information. "
We will endeavor TO give the information.
except that embraced in the last query,
IF so, of what use are courts or laws p
that, we will leave for each one TO answer
for himself. 1t is proper to remark that
the word fright" is used in the sense of
power, or rather ''prerogative,' which is
the better word, because it expresses the
exact idea. 1t was in this sense that we
used it, and, we take it for granted, the
Free Press so understood us and, also, so
uses it. When we say that q jury has
fright to do so and so, we do not mean
that they have the moral, religious, chris
tian right, but it is one Of their preroga-
tiyes SO to do. With this explanation of
the word fright" we say that there is no
limitations whatever 10 the right Of Jurors
10 be judges of the law in criminal cases.
They ere as complete absolute Judges of
the law in such cases, as they are of the
facts in all cases. Let lis illustrate this
question of Judging of "facts." We will
do 1t somewhat after the Yankee fashion
by asking question. We presume our
friend of the Free Press has occasionally
attended court, and he may have been upon
the jury. case is tried involving the
amount Of damages to be assessed. The
evidence is conclusive, and yet did he never
hear Of jury coming TO verdict by
averaging" different sums, and thus find
Ing verdict, to sustain which there WINS
not one particle OF testimony. Such cases
are common, and no man ever thought of
questioning the right Of Jury TO so
judge of the facts
Lest this may seem like begging tho oues-
lion, We will not leave it here Our answer
VIII be clear, emphatic, and our position
unmstaksble. We know Of no Limitation
whatever on this right or prcrogativc of a
jury in criminal trial We do not see
how, it they so will, they can be prevented
IRON going to the full extent Of - snnlllila-
ting statues and decisions OF The Supreme
Court To state it paradoxcally, they
have The right, but il ii not ALWAYS RIGHT
for them 10 use The right How often do
We hear the presiding judge, in criminal
trial after stating the law as il is, tell the
jury, in substance " Such 10 the law. Mu
We are bound to tell you that you are not
bound to accept II from the court. you be- !
ing The s9h judges OF the law as well as the |
facts In the case In the vast majority of
cases, Jurors do accept the law as given to |
them by the court, but il they, in the exer-
else of an undoubtcd prerogatiyc, choose to
nullify the law, we know OF no remedy. In
ordinary times, the existence of this right !
would, probably, lead to as much, if not |
mora, Of injustice than of justice, but the
Time has been, even IN this country, when |
oppression has been turned aside from its
mark by the very, assertion and exercise of |
this right. We need now only refer to the |
celebrated case of John Peter Zengcr, in
dicted for =" two lbcls on the government
OF New York, tried in 1875, where this
right was claimed and exercised. Zenger
was acquitted, the law being unouestion-