Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1879-03-26
MEMPHIS APPEAL
CHANGEOrTHE JUDY sYsrEaI,

There Is d growing desire to change our
jury system. Many are opposed to the In
QUESTION Of a grand jury. Ga er parte tes-
timony the character OF az honest man often
receives a faint which time can never eff5ce.
Professional jurors, whoBare men hanging
around the courthouse for the purpose of
getting job, are generally worthless, ignor-
ant citizens, incapable of doing justice or of
Judging Of the law and facts, and their ap-
pearance in the jury. box makes law and
justice a mockery and a delusion. Their Is
also growing opposition to the old rule Of
requiring unanimity IN the verdict OF jurics.
Recently a resolution vas introduced in the
III uois legislature proposing to submit to the
people an amendment to the constitution
authorizing verdicts in civil cares when con-
Cured in by three-fourths of the jury. This
resolution, however, was defeated by fail
ure to receive the necessary two-thirds
vote. The Chicago Tribune regards this &C.
ton as unfortunate, and says: zine una
nlmity Of juries was part of the original
purpose of juries, which was to protect the
subject against the crown. No such reason
exists at this day, and certainly not in civil
cases. Why should unRnimity be required
of twelve men hearing a complicated case of
accounts between individuals? Hw often
can it be said that each of the twelve jurors
in a case of this kind really does understand
all the facts? 1t now requires absolute una
nimity; the twelve men must each declare
that a owes B a specific sum in dollars and
cents; if one juror dissents in any particular
the whole trial fails, and all has to be done
over again. The temptation to corruption
and bribery is increased by the ease with
which jury may be prevented from finding
a verdict. 1t only needs that one man be
perverse or corrupted to have the
time OF court, suitors, witnesses, and eleven
other jurors wasted in mistrial.
Stripped Of all nonsense with which the
sanctity Of jury trials Is invested by cheap
and superficial demagogues, the requirement
of unanimity Of jurors in civil cases is really
absurd. Every judge, every lawyer, every
litigant, is fully aware that 1t is a waste Of
time, and serves no practical purpose except
to enable corrupt men to sell their votes and
igno-amuses to defeat verGicts and the ends
of justice. a majority expound the laws.
Four judges Of the supreme court render final
uGC4oiJAso Ou dAL Q4c5LlOAo VI law III III
State. Two judges in the appellate court
make lis judgments. In courts where there
are three judges, majority define the law.
Why not require uuanImity in the court as
well as in the jury? Why not demand
unauimity as to the law as well as to the
facts? The action of the house was unfortu-
nate because it delays or postpones this
much-needed reform for at least two years.
and daily experience shows how great is the
abuse Of the present system. The matter
should be reconsidered aud passed. Let the
question be submitted to the people of Hi
nois. They will canvass and study it in all
ITS bearings, and arrive at decision that
will perfectly embody their views and wishes,
and no member of the legislature has a moral
right to prevent them from passing upon the
Jury system