Litchfield enquirer., 1875-09-09
TrIal by Jury.

Trial by Jury.
 An excellent statute, passed last year. provides that every person accused of cnme can elect to be tried by the court instead of by jury. This statute secures the accused from the danger of being con- victed by q jury affected by local preiu- dice. When, however. Dr. Holland, pro- vOked by the failure of the jury to acquit Mr Beecher, calls the system ''a wretched old humbug" and speaks sneerfngU of ''khis Authorization about the sacredness of the jury trial. he shows strange for. getfulness of the history of this great bul. vaEk of popular freedom. True, it is very provoking that, after such an enormous expenditure of time and money as that of the Beecher case, no final conclusion should be reached, but let us consider for . moment what trial by the court might have brought forth. Certainly the friends of Mfr. Beecher would not have acquiesced in any adverse decision of pure question of fact by a single judge or simple ma iOrity of jurymen. Dr. Holland fails to zee that not only policy but justice forbids that any one should be punished on any but conclusive evidence. Draw fifty iu- riss at random from the honest and intel Eeent people of America and portion of each of those juries would believe Mir. Bssehsr guilty of adultery and perjury. vhils another portion would believe MT. TIiton guilty of conspiracy, libel and per- jury. In some of the iuries 6 majority would favor Beecher; in some Hilton. In such . case, therefore. the conclusion reached by trial before single judge OF c jury deciding by mere majority would be a simple matter of accident. Suppose that our criminal courts had been con- ducted on the Holland plan either Mir. Hilton or Mr. Beecher would now be serv- ing out a term in the penitentiary. It might have been one or it might have been the other. Had the case occurred in France, or in Germany. the side favor ed by government would have been suc- cessful. In England, the court would have taken sides, one way or the other, but we do not believe any English jury would have agreed to convict either party of in- famous crime. Now we say that the pe- euliar merit of our system lies in the fact that no man can be subjected to punish ment for an infamous crime on evidence that admits of 6 reasonable doubt of his guilt, because no innocent person can well be found guilty on such evidence by twelve impartial triers where unanimity is requif- cd. To us the evidence against Mir. Beech CT seems conclusive; but we must admit that to largo minority, or perhaps ma iority. of our fellow citizens, the evidence against him does not seem conclusive. To subject him to infamous punishment on such evidence, therefore, would. we admit, be unjust and impolitic. Just SO. any can- did friend of MT. Beecher must admit that to send Meesrs. Hilton and Moulton to the penitentiary for perjury would be unjust and impolitic. for like reason. It would be better. no doubt, if our iuries were more intelligent, but so long as they arc impartial, VIC are not much afraid that any twelve men will unite in verdict of guilty on insufficient exidepoe. .sts
 Dr. Holland must have read hislory to very little purpose, too. if he has failed to estimate the security the jury system en. sares us against governmental oppression. AmerlcA has never been the theatre of of those horrible prosecutions wherein political opponents murdered, ,maimed and plundered each other under the pretense of administering justice. What would tho great writ of Aabeas corpus bs worth If it only secured tho citizen trial before . Suaws appointed by the very government which imprisons himf Trial by jury saved the liberty of the citizen and the liberty of the press in England under the tyrannical reign of George ILL Where would freedom have been in this country if Slave-holding administrations could have sent abolitionists to trial for treason before United States iudgesi What sort of justice would ''Copperheads" have TO. eeivsd at the hands of federal judges in war time, could Mir. Edwin M. Stanton have had them tried without . jury 1 What would the South be. today. with trial by jury abolishedi
 We admit that trial by jury is too heavy apiece of ordnance for many of tho petty uses to which it is put. It shoots small game clumsily. For six-penny law suits and small misdemeanors,i 1t is slow. expen sive, and uncertain 1; but when great prin ciples and the lives and fortunes of strong and earnest men are at stake, this grea palladium of English and American fiber ties ensures those principles and their ad vocates fair play. It not only saves ms cent reform movements from persecution it saves the supporters of ancient abuses from slaughter after defeat. Trial by .inr, saved many an abolitionist from death or the gallows before the Great Rebellion
 it has saved many slave-holder besides Jefferson Davis, from a like fate. and it i, much too merciful . mitigation of ths harshness of the letter of the law to be dis continued by any humane and intelli gent people who have ever experienced ita benefits.