The herald and mail. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 1873-188?, 1875-05-28
ne Jury Law GnCOnsEitu.


The Supreme Court of Tennessee,
IN recent decision, pronOunces the
Jury law passed by the last Legisla-
ture unconstitutional, null and void.
II is an exceedingly able and interest
ing opiniOn-written by Judge Mich
olson-and we regret we have not
room for it. The case is stated so
plainly and understandingly that we
copy it:
Samuel NJ. Medley was one of the
| regular jurors appointed by the County
Court of MauTy County, for the May
term, 1915, of the Circuit Court of that
county. After serving three days the
jurors were informed by the Circuit
Judge that their compensation as jul
rors could only be provided for by tax
ing the same as costs against the
losing parties, i'm pursuance of chap
ter of the act of 1875. WheTeupOn
Medley declined to serve longer, and
for so refusing the Circuit Judge inn
posed upon him fine of SO for con
tempt. From this judgment he has
appealed TO this court
The Court then goes on to say:
at cannot be controversial that it
is one of the implied and necessary
conditions upon which men form
governments, that sacrifices must
sometimes be made by individuals
for the common good, for which no
compensation can be claimed. Such
sacrifices of time or personal service,
or of property, are compensated for i'll
the protection which the Govern
ment furnishes for their rights of per
son or of property.
Courts are an essential part of the
machinery of Government, for the
preservation and protection of their
rights. Jurles are a necessary portion
Of the courts; and whenever it be-
comes proper to require the services
of Jurors i'm carrying on the courts,
this service may be required, and, if
need be, even without compensation;
but this must be required in pursu-
ance to laws enacted for that purpose
by the legislature
The reasons assigned for declaring
the Statute unconstitutional are sue
cinctly given:
"Again, the bill of rights guaran-
tees to every citizen the right of trial
10y Jury, without violation, and by the
eth amendment of the United States
Constitution, it is declared that the
right of trial by jury shall be preserv
ed. This manifestly means that the
right shall never he encountered with
conditions, which, in their practical
operation, may impair the free and
full enjoyment of the right. The act
of Feb y. 1873, leaves to the citizen
no discretion, lie must enjoy the right
if at all, upon the condition of being
made responsible for the compensa-
ton of the jury which in practice
may, and probably would entirely
defeat the enjoyment of the right
1--WE fully appreciate the patriotic
motives which influinced the Legis-
ture in the passage of the act under
consideration. 1t was manifestly de-
signed as a measure of economy, and
we do not undertake to question its
wisdom in that view. The response
bility is devOlved upon us, however, to
protect the condition from infractiOn,
and as far as in our power, to pre-
serve the right of trial by jury from
violation or decentralization, while we
are reluctant at all times to differ
with 4 coordinate branch of the Gov
eminent, as to its constitutional pow
ers, yet we cannot discharge our du-
ties without doing SO unhesitatingly,
when such differences exist. We are
therefore, constrained to hold the act
of February n, 1870, unconstitutional
and void