Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1883-06-27

LYNCH LAW |
The staid and l~aw.sbiding State OF
Iowa should see to it that the lawless
element within her borders is promptly
subdued. Lynch law is not the estab'
lished legal procedure in this country.
Gangs OF men who combine to take the
life Of o person not yet convicted IN
proper form, or il convicted, held In the
custody Of the proper authorities, are
nothing less than murderers, who cut on
human life with malice aforethougnt,
and should be so dealt with. Lynch
law is sometimes properly exercised IN q
new country, where regular and denned
modes Of punishment cannot be enforced
by legally established courts OF justice,
but where law reigns supreme there Is
no excuse or palliation for the enforce.
ment of lynch law, and the hanging OF
the Barber brothers by a mob was an
outrage and a disgrace, fer which the
perpetrators should be prosecuted to the
full extent of the law, if the OF
Iowa shall be indicated Exchange
This paragraph expresses a truism and
is a platitude, but Of such is n~inety-nine
ne.hundredths Of the sermonizing that
crops out on the grave Of every fresh
victim to lynching.
The argument, if any can be found in
such self-eyident assertions, is all IN q
circle.
The root Of the evil is not considered.
The trouble rests with jurors. Who ex-
pects eyeu-handed, certain justice from q
jury? Such a body can no more be cal
culated on than a county convention.
Its ways are known to be dark and its
tricks vain.
Lynching might be checked if there
was any way to hang . few Juries.
The spectacle Of a few dozen OF such
''peers," corrupt or imbecile, might
purify our system.
OF course we can't hang any juries.
They have q monopoly Of changing"
themselves-and there's the trouble.
If the people were satisfied with the
administration of justice there would
be no lynching; the thing never would
be thought Of.
The punishment of felons devolves
upon iuries, but juries do not punish
%felons, and the people, sometimes driven
to desperation, think they have to take
the law into their own hands in order
to relieve themselves by purging the
community OF crime in o rough and
summary manner.
What restraints a man in Nevada
from shooting his neighbor down or
Draining him with an AKIN case he is
restrained at all Is it because he has
a dread of the Courthouse?
On the contrary, that is his house OF
refuge. Ii he has any money, or friends
who will spend money for him, he con-
templates murder without fear. The
jury either say he was c~motlonally de-
ranged, or that he acted in self defense,
or they chang" for him. He comes out
pretty soon scot free, and. if he wants
to, kills somebody else. He becomes the
second time notorious in the chief role OF
a lugubrious farce. Unless somebody
knocks him on the head or puts day
light through him in turn, he blooms into
what we call a "holy terror"
And all on account Of the delectable
jury.
Juries in Nevada are made up from
men whose names are found on the poll
list. Has it never occurred to a Nevada
Legislature that this list is in serious
need Of revision? An innocent man
may dread falling into the hands of this
mob, but the calculating felon has no fear.
Why should unanimity be expected
from twelve men taken without culling
from the poll list There are always
some worthy and intelligent men on a
jury, and we are not unwilling to grant
that such predominant. Why. then. not
place the power of sentencing in the
hands Of a majority Of our "peers"
The United States and England are
the only countries in which the unani-
nifty of a jury is requisite to a verdict.
In France and Germany the agreement
of eight jurors is sufficient, and if the
decision is seven to five the side prevails
which receives the Endorsement of the
Judge or Judges on the bench. A sim
liar rule is in use in Italy, and in Scot
land, where murderers are tried by al
a~ssize, or jury Of Is, q majority verdict
convicts or acquits. 1t is certain that
the abandonment of the requirement Of
unanimity would permit many evils to
drop out Of the jury system of the
United States. The agreement of II
jurors ought to be sufficient for averdict,
aud in the opinion Of many 10 jurors
ought to be able to convict or acquit.
Would it not be wholesome Consider
ing Neva1a's poll list) to extend the
principle and place the hanging or i'm
~prisoning of scoundrels in the hands Of
seven!