The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-07-04
The Trial by Jury and tho Beecher

The Trial by Jury and tho Beechor
The people are fast losing confidence in the
trial by jury and the Beecher case viii not
serve to increase the popularity Of this "bal-
wark of our libertts." During the recent
trial the counsel for the plaintiff was i'm
PEELED to make the serious allegation that at
tempts 10 approach the jurors by the other
side had become known to him and his as
SOCRATES. and it was promised that the asser-
ton should be made good after the verdict
bad been reached. No person who knows
MIR. Beach will suspect that this charge, 30
hazardous to his clients interests with the
jury, was made without some supposed toun-
dalton, and it would seem to be only due to
himself az well as TO the jury that the prom
ised inquiry into the facts should be had.
failure TO bring the subject before the Court
will leave the faint unremoVed. The junior
counsel on both sides now eyince DISPOSE
ton to throw out insinuations against such
of the jurya,en as did not happen to be
friendly to their respective clients. Mr. Nor
ris, speaking in the plaintiffs interest, de-
clares eve should have had a verdict, and
don't pretend to understand why we did not
get it" ave were informed three months ago,
says General Tracy. speaking for the defence.
''that the lawyers for the plaintiff
claimed at least three of the juIymen.
They must have had something TO base this
claim upon. l can only say that the
other side were very quick to start the cry of
Stop thiet!' charging that we had endeav-
ored to corrupt the jurors, when they had not
the slightest evidence Of any such attempt
having been made" MIR. Ready, on the same
side. ''cannot account" for the disagreement,
declares that the evidence 'did not admit OF
such a result, and says. 81 cannot understand
what influence was brought TO bear upon the
testimony; it is q mystery to me-" Some Of
the jurors do not help to dispel the idea at
least OF pre-existing prejudices in the jury
box Foreman Carpenter says II was
Beecher man from the start Nothing in
the evidence shook my opinion. Hence l am
Beecher man to the backbone" Anothet
of the jury-Mr. McMurn-says, 81 am
strong believer in Mr.. Beechers innocence,
and have been from the first, for think the
whole affair put up job" 1t is impossible
not to interpret this language as an admission
that the minds of these jurors were made up
before they took toe oath to well and truly try
the case and true verdict render III accord
ance with the evidence. they may not in
tend such an admission, but If not their
words are at least unfortunately chosen.
II is not desirable that the jury system
should fall into contempt Anything that
tends to impair the respect of the people for
the law and the administration of the law is
an evil Hence the insiuuations Of counsel
against the integrity OF the Beecher jury and
the remarks of the 81 per-serviceable Beecher
jurymen are both to be deplored There is
nothing in the facts to cast the slightest I'M
putation on the honesty of the jury. The
ballots stood sometimes seven for Beecher
and FIVE for Tilton; sometimes seven for
Til,on to five for Bsecher sometimes six
against six sometimes eight for the defend
ant and four for the plaintiff and eventually
nine to three. This proves that the minds of
many were fuctuating, and is consistent with
the great diversity of opinion outside. In
deed, it is fair to conclude that on tie broad
question of the guilt or innocence OF the de-
PENDANT the twelve were as nearly evenly
divided as possible, and that the eventual
result of nine to three was attributable to
desire to agree and the natural disposition to
give the accused party the benefit of the
doubt Still it is none the less to be regret
ted that the indiscreet zeal Of counsel and the
unreAecting sympathy of some of the jury
men should have made the result of the re-
voting trial means of bringing fresh disre-
pute and contempt upon the verdict of the
jury box generally.