The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1875-07-24
OUR JURY SYSTEM.

The following article on the above subject
we find in tho Rochester On. " Democrat
and Chronicle. The writer of the article
will be recognized by his initials as former
citizen of Elkton, somewhat given to max.
ing newspaper paragraphs, and contempt
for customs which have only the veneration
of age to recommend them:
| "For six months the reading public were
treated almost daily, by the newspapers, to
portion of the proceedings in the Tilton-
Beecher trial, while men, women and chill
dren, everywhere engaged, during that
period, in discussion of the great scandal;
and finally the case was brought to close
by the jury, after staying out week, fail
ing to agree upon verdict.
Is this, then, the conclusion of the whole
matter? Is so vast an expenditure of time
and money to be followed only by such a
lame and impotent conclusion? Must the
plaintiff and defendant both 60 contentedly
away-the former with his claim unsatis-
fed, and the latter with his character I'M
vindicated; or must the whole horrible
business be gone through with again and
again, until twelve men can be found who
will agree upon the justice of Tilton's
claim, or the purity of Beecher's charac-
ter? Whatever course may hereafter be
adopted by the immediate parties to the
trial, it has to them as yet, been produc-
tive only of barren and vexatious results.
What its effects upon society have been,
and may be, no one can calculate. 1t has,
however, illustrated so forcibly the absurd
ity and injustice of our jury system that a
radical change therein is inevitable. Thous-
ands who have all their lives firmly believed
that justice could be obtained only through
a unanimous verdict of twelve men, have
had their faith in that belief terribly shaken
by it, while it has fastened thousands of
others to the conclusion that there must be
cheaper and more efficient method than
our present one of reaching the end desired.
Let us investigate the subject.
Is there any reason why jury should be
composed of twelve men, and why these
twelve men should be required to be unani-
nous in their opinion as to the justice or
injustice of claim, or the guilt OF inno-
cence of prisoner? Has the number of
the jury anything to do with the quality Of
the verdict? Is a verdict of twelve men
any more likely to be in accordance with
justice than verdict of ten, or eight, or
six, or any other number? If so-why?
If not-why not dispense with at least
one-half, and get rid of a portion of the
expense, as we'll as a portion of the cum
bersomeness, of the larger body? Under
our republican system of government all
questions of political economy, no matter
how vital, are decided by majority of the
people directly, or through their represen-
tatives. Why then should not majority
of jury decide whether plaintiff who
claims 800, is entitled to the whole, or
any portion of his claim; or whether a
prisoner, charged with stealing bit of
bacon, is guilty or not guilty of the offence? ?
The idea that unanimous vote of twelve
men in jury box should be required to
vidual, while majority of one, in legis-
lative body, should be deemed sufficient to
determine the political rights of an entire
nation, is too preposterous to be seriously
entertained by men who give the subject
single thought. How it has retained a
Judgement in the brains of a rejecting
people SO long surpasses comprehension.
1t certainly has nothing to recommend it
but its antiquity. Is it not one of the ira
ditions of our ancestors that we have &C
cepted unthinkingly, and cling to because
it is venerable?
But aside from its absurdity, let us look
at the injustice of the jury system. What
is it but compromise between reason and
force, in which force has the advantage?
Coercion lies at its very foundation. And
the fact is fully recognised in the oath
administered to the officer in charge of a
jury, which requires him to "keep them
together without meat or drink, until they
agree upon verdict" Was there any
thing much more brutal or unjust in the
old trial by battle than there is in the
modern trial by jury, which superseded it p?
Are not both tests of physical endurance ?
In one case the decision rests with the
stoutest and best trained arms, in the other
with the stoutest and best trained stemachs. !
1t is hard to conceive a method less calcu- |
lated to enable a body Of men to arrive at
truth and right in matter pending before
them, than one that confines them in a
wretchedly- ventilated room, where they can
neither lie nor sit down in comfort, and
thirst until they come to o decision. 1t |
certainly requires great faith in human
nature to expect justice from the average |
jury under such circumstances.
True, the old idea of forcing an agree
ment, as expressed in the oath which is |
still administered, is becoming obsolete, |
and has been SO far modified as to allow |
juries to eat and drink, with permission of |
the court, during their deliberations; but |
why should any tribunal, in free country,
have authority to lock up body of DELHI
erative freemen, and deny, or allow, them
food and drink at pleasure?
Why should it be deemed necessary to
confine and starve jury to enable them
to weigh and decide upon evidence to which
they have listened free and fulfilled for days
or weeks or months Why should men in !
quest of justice be restrained or coerced in |
any manner, shape or FORM And why |
should a system that not only permits, but |
requires, twelve intelligent men to be locked
up without meat or drink, without exercise, |
without sleep-in word, without any
comforts or oonveniences whatever, until |
they arrive at an unanimous verdict-be |
tolerated? Its absurdity and injustice have |
become too apparent to be longer winked |
att W.. E.
THE MANUFACTURE OF HUMAN HAIR
The largest establishment of this nature in
the world exists in Germany. 1t is situated |
in town called Wetzlar, in the valley of
tho obp II iS tbo Ian,t 70 ,,b;oI, ~