The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-02-17
JHrers' Fees.
SALT LAKE CITY, Feb. Is, 'S2.
Editors Herald:

4
friends. We three agree touching
the payment of very small fee tt
each juror Of each jury; and | have
never conVers9d with a juror who
did not accord.
The no-pay imposition is simply
preposterous-shall L say an outrage
inflicted upon the citizen, so unfor
tunate as to be drawn by judge OF
clerk, to be a juror. The system is
compound of comedy and tragedy
of the latter when poor juror
has to mortgage his watch and over
coat in payment of board, lodging
and washing; and when reused te
Indignation In having to sit in the
box for days and weeks to listen to
legal harangues about overdue notes,
and in spending much more valuable
time in calculating up accrued
interest thereon, in The jury room.
The comedy phase comes in when
one of the patient and patriotic
twelve is nominated by his brother
jurors to be spokesman in court in
their behalf. An incident of this
kind occurred in the Third District
court last February term. We Sc
lected the talleSt man and the best
looking, a far reaching and far
seeing brother with ruddy counten-
Rnce and good address to be our
interceder. He did his duty well.
Judge Twiss said, in substance:
Gentlemen Of the jury, your cause is
just, but the court can do nothing for
you; | hope you are not hungry the
law has made no provision; the ter
ritorial Legislature makes no appro-
priation for the payment Of jurors
in civil cases.
This bland announcement from
the learned, honest and good tenn
pered judge pat the jurors in very
good humor; in fact | thought they
looked as happy as the subjects of a
certain French king, who was so
polite in refusing to grant faVors
that the petitioners went away
empty feeling more elated than they
would had he granted their request;
the feeling soon subsidies. There is
more work to be done and we are up
till midnight. Who is going to pay
us for this? says one. Perhaps the
plaintiff, perhaps the defendant,
says another. The last of this sort
of civil business, in the experience
of the writer, last February term,
originated in Q gambling house. 1t
was a suit to recover the balance
due, or the unpaid amount of a note
given in gambling transaction.
We soon disposed OF this case in
favor Of the defendant, as a gam
bling debt cannot be collected in
law. This is the kind of civil bust
ness, in great measure, that re-
spectacle citizens, as jurors, are
called upon to arrange, and there is
no protection or exemption from
theperformance of such important(? p
duties. If the said gamblers had
been obliged to pay US $50, I ques-
ton if they would have desired our
services. What can be done in the
premises. to do justice to all, iujus-
tice to none?
Mr.. Peery's fee of SIS to a jury is
insufficient. a late suit-"Pinyon"
and "Pinyon Elk" mine 0s. the ''Cli-
max" claim-tried in the United
States Third District Court, from
Nov. 10Th to December 10th, 1881,
required the jury to sit for thirty
days i'll hearing and forty-iYe hours
in consultation upon the case. At
So per diem this jury would receive
$1.242. Were they not entitled to
this just compensation for services
rendered? They did not agree and
were discharged by the court.
Would the plaintiffs in the suit pay
them? Would it be likely that the
defendants in the suit would pay
them? 1t is optional with litigants
to pay or not to pay-a perniciOus
practice, anyway-for it comes in
the jurors hands, if it ever does
come in that way, as personal IA
yor. An arrangement of the kind
is fraught with jealousy and suspi-
cion in juries, even if it does not
contaminate with dishonesty this
all important branch of jurispru-
dence.
Would it not be just for the state
to pay all the fees of the jurors? In
such cases as the one cited, for eX-
ample, 1t would place a great bur-
den upon the back Of the state. All
of Us would have to help shoulder
it.
But what of the unpaid juror? If
it be urged that TO pay him would
increase litigation, which in many
matters means blackmail, robbery
we fail to see it. The juror is at
the call of the court. Like a ma
chine he is stationed at his post, to
remain there a passive servant of
the people, subject to be set in
motion at any m0ment-at any mo-
ment even a litigant with good or
bad cause in hand, may demand his
services to adjust mis- private bu<i-
ness, as well as to give his mental
services for any length Of time to
the commonwealth. a good round
fee, to be paid by the litigant, would
help the cause and also prevent It'll
CATION. Many would resort to COM
promise out of court. or leave the
case for the judge to decide.
How far would Mr.. Peery'5 bill,
unamended, remove the UNJUST dis
elimination His s. fee would not
90 very far in payment Of the jury
in the case above cited. Such suit
"a that would demand a $500 fee.