, 1875-02-06
TRIAL BY JURY.

Emery a. Storm Replies to tho CrItl.
cisllt~ of n Correspondents.
10 the Filter Of 1ht ch,eu9e Tribune:
CHICAGO, Fob. 4.-Ihs spirit IN which your
correspondent "Eo,no AIbus" baa criticised
through tile columns OF THE TRIBUNE some por-
tons Of the lecture recently delivered by nc bo-
fore tho Law School on tho s.Or:gln. History,
and M.rAs OF Trial by jury" ls in tho main
fair, and many OF tho euggosttons embodied in
Ills communication, whetllor on tho whole they
are to bo uonHdorad as nound or unaoand, are
well worthy Of discussion. Your correspondent
evidently id not Lear tho lecture. and bases bis
criticism upon 1t entirely upon tho report in The
TRIBUNE, which, while substantially correct, dues
not prbteua to give even an o1tlua Of it us
wAo'o. After having discussed the origin aud
history OF jury trials, I quto briefly touched
upon tho meiity aud dcfccA Of tbs systom, ar
gning That, while Jurors frequently erred, while
tho conclusions which they reachsd vera fro.
quently ERRONEOUS, yet that no bottes uystem for
the tlal Of questions Of faet had ever az expert
cnco demonstrated. been deriAed-
That VA havo at times incompetent, ignorant,
aua poshaps. corrupt. Jurors
PROVES NcTn1No
against ths systenl. For that roason alons wo
would not abolish jury trizlF. Precisely tla
Hanlo line Of reasoning WOULD lend TO the orsr-
throw Of Cur enti1o judicial nys!etn for, taking
tho country ut largo there call b0 found many
ignorant and Incompetent aud few corrupt
Judges. That NC have unfit men Ter Jurors falls
far short Of proving tnAt ws ought to tiiDpenss
with Jury trials. 1 insisted that u proper caro-
wero taken iu tie selection Of our 1urorx uapy
Of ths evils Of which complaint Ia mads would 10
yomovol, and that the fault had rested In nome
measure at least, upon the Cour:s, who wore fre-
quenty too ready to cxouse from service upon
Jur!es competent aud intelligent men ul,o had
baai, Hulnmoncl ior thut purpose. Our sJasein
| Of delivering to t!ls juty
WRITES INSTRUCTIONS
| prepared by counsel alAo toudod ~ arguad to
uioeud and confuse them. 1beho Instructions
ma In the nature Of Abatract legal p1opositoue.
All taken together they scarcely ii over furnIAl,
ucomp!eta view Of tho entire rase. Prepared by
| counsel. tley nre intended to present simply 70
much of tho Inv ril 10 advantageous to tl,e,n.
THO result in tia. they are often conflicting, and
durken rather than enI:ghten the Judgment, and
furnish no sulid or satisfactory baHIs Upon which
the t'rs may stand III eudsaror;us 10 reach a
| vela,ct.
I ana no, able to determine fro,n hin co;nmnui-
cation what Inatlod of lnst netting tie Jury
'llomo Ahus fasors. lie ciiticisen niue, bat
p1opaAss nono Of lila own. 3ly suggestion was
that tho Court should clIargs tho jury, and that
| tlIe charge thEs delivered shuultl 10 writtan.
| l,.ue coherent review Of tue entire case could
bo furnished the jury; and In order to avoid dinl-
cullios iu making up bill of exceptions which
arc frequently Dhconnterea whero ths Charge l.
an oral one. u,Y proposition Wa that 1t should
he in writing, 10 That there could be no mistake
~ to what Tie cbatge in 1act was. Your corre
spont1cns 9uc1 1tous . tie reliability Of writer
charge by JudSe rloso traa are ss
confused ia To charge On l,2th sides Of tho SAINT
proposition without knowing it, But tic dill
ca!ty il tat iu balancing conflicting instructions
pressuthl hlm by counsel on both sides ti.s
Judge II nut.s. more liaola to charge on boil