The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1883-01-06
SATURDAY, JANUARY 6, 1883.
Trial by Jury.

Reform is the order of the day. The human
mind, keeping pace with the increase OF light
and knowledge, investigates and analyses ev-
erything, testing all things by the touehstone
of truth and reason. Society is not yet per-
feet in its organization. Civilization Is still
reaching out after higher attainments, and the
age is one of extraordinary mental activity.
Old forms, customs and ideas no longer in
spire reverence on account OF their antiquity
If they are not consonant with the progress OF
the age, they are unceremoniously laid aside
and a new order of things substituted in their
stead Jurisprudence, or the science OF law,
as we'll as the means and appliances by which
it is administered, forms no exception, but
like all other things is tried in the crucible OF
experience and approved or condemned ac-
cording to its merits or dement's.
Trial by jury, Or by the Judgment of your
peers, is a very ancient institution, one which
in the lapse of time has undergone many
changes In its present form it is only few
centuries old, and was modified in England
by statute as late as the time of Mr.. Fox, ii
not at a still later period. Our own systemis
derived from England, and is very similar.
Mr. Forsyth, in his history Jury trial, notes
the fact that the functions of the jury in libel
cases, were restricted to the facts only, by
the practice of Lord Mansfield, who was at
tackled by Junius and other writers, until, by
the Act of Fox, these functions were restored
and the jury again made the judges OF both
the law and the facts.
Hirsh on the Jury, most excellent autho-
rity, says that jury trial does not owe Its ex-
istence to any particular era or to any positive
statute, but that it grew up insensibly and by
degrees, having its germ in human nature IT.
self, and in some form or other, is found IN
almost every form of civilization, the essence
of 1T being reference of disputed facts to the
impartial Judgment of few men of average
understanding, and of nearly the same station
in life as the litigants.
Some form of jury trial was known to the
ancient Romans In England, during the
feudal ages the jury consisted, at times, OF
vassals of the barons or the sovereign, and
were subservient to superior power or superior
will The number of the jury varied at dit
ferent times. 1t was sometimes three, or hVe,
or six or seven; and they were empowered to
hear evidence and determine the facts, but
the verdict was reserved for their superors.
These facts show the many changes through
which the jury system has passed; and although
it has been improved from time to time. from
what it originally was, it is yet far from being
perfect, or satisfactory to the average intelli-
gence The practical workings of the system
often disappoint public expectation and do
violence to the cause of justice, common sense
and reason. Who cannot recall the verdicts
of iuries which were received with surprise
and establishment by the public, because they
were so at variance with reasonable expecta-
ton, did violence to public sentiment, and
shocked the common intelligence. Recently,
in the Baltimore Criminal Court, John Dig
nan. indicted for killing Edward II. Frames
was acquitted while Hopkins, his alleged ac-
complete, was tried and convicted in Baiti-
moro county, and sentenced to fifteen years
in the penitentiary. Were both verdictS right?
1t often happens that in the selection OF Juries
in important criminal cases, the cunning at
tOrney aims, or seems to aim, to select men
below the average standard of intelligence
too obtuse to form their own opinions,
but ready to accept the ingeniously wrought
theory of the prosecution or the defense as the
case NAV be. In such trial by jury OBJ
structs the course of justice instead OF beng
its conservator. Like results have happened
in civil as we'll as criminal cases, until faith In
the efficacy of trial by jury has been much i'm
paired, and the public mind is casting about
for something better than that afforded by the
present system. 1t has been suggested, by
legal minds, that the present system be abo-
ished, and that permanent jury be substitu-
ted of men learned in the law. They argue
that it is absurd to invest men with the power
and authority to determine both the law and
the facts, who are ignorant not only OF the
law, but have not capacity to Judge intelli-
gently of the facts. A jury oil legal men might
be composed of less number than twelve,
and thus save expense. There is no reason
why half that number would not serve just as
we'll. The suggestion is worthy OF consldera-
ton, though we confess we should approach
the subject with much diffdence. AS old Gus
toms are not to be reverenced and retained on
account of their antiquity, so innovations
should not be adopted because of their nov
city. At first blush, however, this plan would
seem to have merit sufficient to entitle it to
favorable consideration. At any rate it is
generally conceded that the present system
needs reform, but what that reform shall be,
demands the most serious consideration OF
the public mind.