Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1874-04-17

The Rutland Gio5e replies a follows to
.aa questions Of this paper
~ c H. not propose TO argue this case,
any more than .ac Free Press does ; We do
not propose to defend the jury or the at
tornoys in the case. but tha question hay-
! inc been propounded to Us In good isitp, rs
We believe, we will proceed 10 give the ros-
son for the faith that Is within u. premis-
lnr. however. that we do 1t As layman
not rs n lawyer.
When we say that jury has right
10 d. ~ and 50. we do not mean that they
have tas moral, religious, Christian right
but il l. one at thsiF prerOgatives 50 to do.
With this explanation Ot ths word right,
we say that there Is no limitation what
even to the right Of Jurors to BE- ,adgss
of the law in criminal cases. They axe
as complete absolute Judges Of the law
IN such cases. a. they are Of the facts
m all cases. Let ms illustrate this
question of Judging OF ''iacts. We will
do il somewhat after the Yankee fashion by
asking a question We presume our friend
of the Free Press mas occasionally attended
court. and he may have been upon the jury.
case Is tried involving the amount oil
daa..zas - be assessed. The evidence Is
eouc!nsiTe, 49, ret did he never hear Of
Jury coming 10 : -eE~4Ct by averaging
different sums. and thus hud-lg 2 verdict,
to sustain which there was not one pRTfA@ia
of testimony. Such cases are common, ana
no man ever thought OF questioning the
right" of jury to 50 Judge OF the facts.
Lest this may seem like begging the ques-
ton. we will not leave 1t here Our answer
will be clear. emphatic, and our position
unmistakable. We know Of NJ limitation
~ . nwf 4~n n
iury in ? criminal trial. We do not see
now. If they SO viii. they can be prevented
from going to the full e1IsLt 81 annlhlle-
tang" statutes and decisions Of the errreme
Court 10 state it parodoxlcaIly, tbey
have the right. hut it Is not always right
for them TO Use the Tight. How often do
we hear the presiding judge. N criminal
trial, after stating the law a. II j., tsll the
Jury. in substance: such il the law, but
we are bound to tell you that you are not
sound to accept it from the court, you De-
iAS .he sole Judges of the law as well as the
facts id lie case. In the vast majority OF
cases, Jurors DO sceept the law as given to
them by the court. hue - they, IN the eZer-
else OF an undoubted prercga,Al. choose TO
nullify the law, We know OF no remedy ~
ordinary times. the existence OF TINS right
SS-it, probably, lead TO as much, II not
more. 81 n. Hsfiee than of justice, but the
time has been, esen in this country, when
oppression has been turned Eslle from us
mark by the very assertion ana e4eEctss OF
this right We do not dsfsnd the action Of
theMilton jury, because, as We said before,
we think it is indefensible. We cannot IN
derstand how these six men could
rssoae;le their verdict with their oaths
and thsis conscienees. That, how
ever, is question between them
selves, their eonsciences ana their God. We
think as we said before, that there Is mIah OF
safety to our liberties in this prerogativs or
right. We do not think that because ajury
hss. in a single instance, stretched the prin-
ciple to its utmost tension that 1t Is an ar
gument for its ssrogation.
The GLOBE makes its points fully under