Morning journal and courier., 1882-03-01
Wednesday Morning, March 1. 1882.
PIIILApELPHIA,s JURY sYsTENI.

PHILADELPHIA'S JURY SYSTEM.
 Several prominent business men of Phila- delphia and some members of the bar of that city are quietly moving in favor of some i'm portant changes in the jury system. Under the method in use jurors are empanelled for periods of from two weeks to thirty days. The gentlemen interested in the proposed change believe that the citizens would be more willing to accept the inconvenience and responsibility of serving on jury if they were only called upon to act for shorter periods than those required at present. Mir. Israel W. Morris, of the Lehigh Valley rail road company, IS one of those who favor the change, and his attention called to the matter through his personal experience, he having been empanelled on jury and kept from his business for three weeks. MT. Morris was interview ed and said that it was an undeniable fact that the better class of citizens endeavor to shirk the duties of ju- ryman. They will use every means in their power to be relieved from serving The mere question of the pay is nothing to man with large business interests. He would gladly pay five times the sum if by so doing be could be exempt from serving, or could employ substitute. Mir. Morris did not ex- cuse this as being right, but it was simply fact which every one who has had any expe- rience in the courts knows to be true. Men come before the judges offering all sorts of excuses and pleas to be relieved from serv- ing. They are usually those who have large interests at stake, good and reputable citi- zens who have the welfare of the city or county at heart, but whose personal interests are naturally paramount to those of the pub lie, and are naturally consulted first. The inconvenience of serving three or more weeks on juries is not only felt by capitalists and the heads of large corporations and busi- ness firms, but by small tradesmen and deal CTS as well. There are hundreds of citizens in business for themselves in a small way, who, if they are called upon to act as jurors, have no one to whom their business can be entrusted during their enforced absence Mir. Morris thinks jurors should be empanelled for one week only.
 Judge Briggs is one of those who oppose a change and he points out that the judges have the power to excuse men from serving if they see fit to do so. Active military men, school directors, those serving the people in office, and by an old British statute still in force in Pennsylvania, those over seventy years of age are excused Men hard of hear tug are also excused. Judge Briggs stated that between seven thousand and eight thou sand names are now selected every year by the Judges from the assessors list to be drawn for jurors, and if the jurors were only called upon to serve for one week it would necessitate that about twenty thousand names should be selected. A man has got to serve two or three days before he grows to understand his duties as a juror. It takes 8 man that time to get regularly in the routine and if the periods were shortened it would require much extra time occupied by the judges in instructing new juries. Judge Briggs therefore believes the present jury system to be as just and perfect one as it is possible to obtain.
 The judge seems to have the best of the argument. It is certainly inconvenient for a man with large business interests to serve on jury for three weeks, but it would not help the matter much to shorten the period of service to week.