Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1882-06-08
Trial by Jury IN Ireland.
lFrom the New York Suu.l

|
jury In Ireland cannot fail in the enc
to make a deep impression on publ,
opinion in Great Britain, and, although
the Government may now see fit t.
disregard their protests, they will
probably lead to speedy repeal of tht
| Objectionable provision. The strength
of the position taken by the Irish
bench lies in the fact that abolition Of
the jury system is no new thing in
ireland but after being applied for .
quarter of u century, the experiment
was abandoned, OIL the ground that
the hardship and injury it oecasioned
more than counterbalanced the spe.
cious arguments adduced on its be
half
What were the actual workings OF
the enactments by which trial by jury
was formerly superseded in Ireland
1t was the Irish Parliament which in
1899, the year following the great re-
oeilion. passed all act suspending the
writ of habeas corpus, providing for
the esta bIishmeiit of martial law at
the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant,
aud comforting an indemnity by antici-
patton for the most oppressive and
brutal deeds that might be done under
its sanction. This law continued in
force until March, 1902, and the cruel
ties which marked It's execution are
attested by the unimpeachable tesu-
mony of Lord CORVALLIS. The system
of-martial law was continued by sue
cessiye enactments of the imperial
Parliament until the year 1904, but in
1906 the Whig Lord Lieutenant, the
Duke of Bedford, refused to resort to
this harsh remedy, and relied with
success on the ordinary administration
of justice for the repression of crime.
But the Tories soon returned to power
in England. and in 1907 they passed
the stringent statute known us the in
SURF ction act. AS the operation OF
this law was prolonged, with some
slight notifications and brief inter
missions, until August, 1925, and as it
is virtually reproduced in the bill nov
pending in Parliament, it may be well
to examine lis provisions and their
practical consequences IN some detail.
The main Object of tile insurrection
act of 1907 was to counteract the or
ganiz d intimidation, which, 1t was
alleged, prevented witnesses from tes-
tifylng and jurors from convicting.
To this end the statute created Il num-
Der uf new offenses. Thus it was made
penal to be found out of doors at night
time, to possess arms, to assemble i'll
public houses by night, to hawk sedi
ious newspapers i'll proclaimed dis
ricts, or TO take an oath to withhold |
evidence of crime. Summary powers,
moreover, of commitment for such Of
enses were conferred upon magis-
rates. An attempt was also made to
,alk the yend. tia against witnesses
" providing that The sworn informa-
ion of persons who should, after max
ny an affidavit, be murdered, MANNED
II hindered from t,stifying at trial,
houId be received as testimony, and
N indemnity in money was insured Ia
witnesses who had been MANNED, or TO
he representatives, of witnesses who
ad been murdered. Finally, the ac.
irlualiy abolished trial by jury for
he aiTtllses created under it, for a con-
nuous special session was to be held
4 every disturbed district. and pre-
ided over by a harrister appointed by
ne Lord Lieutenant, i'll addition to
ne ordinary court. In the event OF
between the chairman
nd the rest of the bench, the case was
emitted to the Lord Lieutenant, So |
lat practically the latter's appointee
as the sole arbiter of justice. The i
atute. indeed, nominally permitted |
lie impaneling of petit juries tnot of c
rand juries) at the discretion of the S
,urt, but this merely perm iSsive r
ause remained for the most part a a
lad letter. :
One result of this rigorous legislation
as to entail upon the peaceful and
eIl-disposed inhabitants of a given
strict an amount of suffering and a
scontent out of all proportion 10 the u
ime repressed. The number of COM II
ittals, when compared with that of - =
nvictions, demonstrated n grievous -
ant of discretion on the part of the d.
agstrates in exercising the wide T
wers intrusted to them. In single le
ar, and Within only a few counties, Is
t Cf 52S persons apprehended and st
ed at special session without jury.
5 were acquitted. That is to say, IS
rsonal indigaIty and pecuniary loss IS
,re Inflicted upon ooS inoffensive Is
rsons for the sake of furnishing 60 Is
10 might perhaps have been con- *
tied under the ordinary forms of IS
v. In another year / ,42s innocent ,ss
rscns were placed in confinement in IS,