Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1881-08-04


cases is, in the main, farce. 1t is well
enough that man may, be allowed the
privilege of demanding a verdict OF
twelve men on his claim, il he wants it.
1t is we'll enough to have such a guaran'
tee incorporated in the Constitution. we
would not disturb it there il We Guild
But the folly OF the whole thing is in the
practice OF calling twelve men, as matter
OF course, to determine every tritilng case
that is brought into the courts.
The practice encourages delay petit
Jogging and vexatious litigation, Now
a.days it is almost impossible to get
twelve men TO agree about the simplest
fact in the world. Twelve men may be
eve witnesses, from the same spot, OF an
assault and battery, and if sent to the
iury room to render a verdict, would
most likely have twelve different opin-
ions about 1t.
The caprice and uncertainty OF the
average iury have made bad and design
ing men bold to carry cases into court
which they know have no standing IN
law or justice. They depend upon
hoodwinking a iury-depend upon the
stupidity and contrsriness OF twelve
men to defeat verdict.
The excessive use OF the jury IN civil
cases is the prime cause for the univer-
sal complaint that our courts are alto
gether too slow, too expensive, too
yexatious, too uncertain and too I'M
lust 10 satisfy the business man oil to
day. The fact is that while everything
else is advancing our courts are In many
things handicapped by the crude Gus
toms and notions of a past century.
This is net an individual opinion, but
the growing and outspoken opinion oil
the press of the country and OF the most
eminent lawyers of the time. 10 re-
cent editorial the New York Herald
saws: "The civil jury of today is
crude unconscious relic OF the past, which
has come down through four centuries
without material change, and which
never could have found place in mod
ern jurisprudence had it not been ioist-
ed upon us by time and circumstance.
Men drawn at random from the masses,
without any reference to their intelli
gence, experience or calling, are made to
decide intricate questions OF property,
finance, trade. shipping, mechanics, &c,
concerning which they are wholly igno-
rant. As their duties are temporary
they gain no experience. AS they
serve unwilhngly and with Impotence
to return to their business or homes
they are apt to be careless and inditfer-
ent, In the number of its members the
Jury is absurd. Controversies involving
ssss-is.sa7aes.hssd asSsias sfsbus sFSisSe
tied by two or three srbitrators. Bust
ness men submit their differences tf
one OF their own number. But in &
jury trial, however insignificant the
amount or the question involved, twelve
men are deemed essential to settle thu
matter satisfactorily. Nor is this the
most ridiculous feature of the system
In tribunals OF arbitration, courts, leg
islative and other bodies the graves
questions are decided by a majority
But in the case OF jury the ancient re
quirement OF unanimity which italian
properly denounces as "preposterous
relic of barbarism" defeats every verdict
to which each OF the twelve jurors is not
willing to agree. After declaring thai
there is in the community widespread
distrust OF the trial by jury in civil cases
well informed writer in the July At
idntic maintains that justice would be
better administered if all questions oil
fact, as well as law, were decided by
judges without juries, and in support oil
this view he says that litigsnts rarely
claim jury in those cases where the
law gives them that option. As 20 the
merits OF this sweeping reform opin.
ions will differ. But there is no reason
why a civil jury should consist of more
than three or five members, or why a
majority OF these should not return a
verdict.
These views are in the line OF those
which the REaIsTER has been endeavor-
ing to impress upon our law makers for
The past two or three years. Instead
OF considering our jury system the
s1mmtm boRum of our laws, it be-
hooves our legislators to look into il and
see il it is not really the prolific source
OF nearly all the evils and imperfections
of our judiciary system.
We do not complain that in every
criminal accusation man should have
twelve chances for his life or reputa-
ton, but We do claim that it is not
only folly bat an injustice to litigsnts
that every tritling controversy between
men should as q matter of course and
matter of practice run the gauntlet Of
twelve diverse opinions in order to
reach a conclusion.
We believe that it is in the power OF
the Revisory Committee to bring about
a great reform in this direction. True,
they cannot abolish juries, but they IN
doubtedly can present q measure, as
heretofore indicated, that will result in
Involuntary abolition OF the jury in the
majority Of civil c4ses. This has been
done in other States; why not in this?