, 1875-10-11

THE JURY SYSTEM.
The question Of radically modifying the
present jury syaten, OF Of abolishing it nlto-
gether, is alrendy beginning to excite con-
siderable public intention, and viii uniloubs-
edly, within the next few ycarH, como to he
ono Of tho leading questions Of the day. by
its opponents the jury system is character
lied Oh relic Of barbarism, I, rominiscenco
Of past age, and it il alleged TINT justice
can better DO s,,bsorved by making the Judge
sole arbiter Of both law anil fnct. Although
there il much reason for complaint, yet, be-
fore destroying an institution which has
withstoo1 The wear md toar OF i've or Bix
centuries and which is peculiarly English in
ita character, we should FIRST inquire whether
we can substitute anything better.
The chief objection to tho present mode
Of soliciting jurors is, TINT it seems to SGT a
premium on ignorance BY requiring TINT q
juror shall know nothing OF case which ho
is to decide. The courts seem to havo baon
too strict in demanding TINT juror slall b.
ignorant of n caso. Originally Jurors wero
Witnesses and tho only witnesses. They do
eilel the caso entirely from thoir own knowl-
edge, and Of course, II there wero no wit
ncsses thcro was no jury. But as society be-
came more settled and moro complex rs tho
population increased, so that the life of each
citizen could not DO known by al his towns
mon, II became impossible to find twelyo
witnesses for any deed, and step was taksn
onward in requiring that tie Jurors, II
not cognixant Of the facts them
solves, should ut 1east ho acquainted
with tho witnesses. But even this, in the
course Of centuries, became impossible, end
jurors were drawn from tho county at large,
and gave their verdict entirely GU the faots
proved to them by witnesses, whose crodibil-
ity VIVA eEtimntod, outside of any personM
acquaintance, by their knowledge of human
nature.
In this discrimination against knowledge,
however, lawyars are far more ut fsult than
tho Judges. The questions put arc, I" Have
you any fixed opinion on tho subjcct?" sis
It such that it would require evidence to re-
move IT." II The juror answers in the nega-
tive 10 both tllcsa questions he is eligible,
even though he haVo somo inforna-
ton as to tho subject matter Of the
cass to 10 tried. But here the lawyer
e,n;rataa tha ;uror u,,o n+aLob,v ,,w raeI1
IN, w. i1o,,,, ,a,ra ,,,a ~,,;,,a,1 III.
Irow,o,,oo Inn Lin fa1lo,ys Tha 1e,;a H.
r,n;n h,,t tav1.v Re NV. a,;,a o.,s' T.,
foro,.;an on a srh,oo+ IN % tors,a ~, sn;s;.a
md - ta for,, m on;,;o, ho :, ~. aa,..,a
tcut M a ;,ror trh;s "a a,,1v tr,,o -, = ~
tn;n cv.an. rhe varv oh,oc, =, a,,roa,;,n !.
to erpiIcnte IL The mora n mon icorns mi u
tho lonoor ba l;vea tho more ~ In d;anosod .s',
to f1;str,,st h;a avn on;n;ons to ha III
oront ~ othors h snsro,I IL. ,,,In
n,nt mill ha ioorr tha v,n,o ,r,,th T.
lint ba rosa;h,o W. o,a .;,l;n, =, s,,,n,,
voars in atnlv In ocn,;ra n,.,or ~ vida ra
Il our own oire;ra. ~ ,hot ,,o,uo,. taa.. ,o,,,.
BILE when onnlica to onother'a ,,ao2 =, IL ~
ou;r,,, that - iunor .,01, IN ,,,a show .,,no !,
witnosa IL heforo him moaa,-o ,;s ~ narta 49, Il a,d
,norol col;,,ro N short ,,,to;, J.. ~ hou !.
what T., ala, lima h., ,rov o,,oa,o1 ,;s..;,,,e :
n ocou;r, ria h;nho.t 1an-ao -, ;",a,,,.
ceneo il tsorcfo,a ncceanorv ~ .nn,lv ~ ,l,is
lark of nen,ouoi acnna;ntorca ord - a.
from a mon hoino .,iuonnl;,3o1 for hav;na
road ,ho cnrrent navu Il .bou,d ,o . ~o,o,n'
manhattan Eor Ia - a fact ,hnt +,a or.,;n . -,
va,i,no ~ n naus,onar will i,;o. a., ,nto;.
,;oant mon r. !. ~ .ha ;.,.a.o".