The Monitor. [volume] (Woodstown, N.J.) 1884-1892, 1884-04-25
OUR Jury SYSTEM.

star route trials to vindicate either law or
right, and the gross miscarriages of justice,
which served as the occasion of the Cincin-
natl riots, have strongly tended to intensity
the growing distrust of our jury system.
While the outrages, in the latter case,
furnished no excuse for the riots, they SO en-
forced the question of the reliability of juries
part of our judicial system. If those were
only isolated cases, they might be regarded
as exceptional, and as not affecting the rule
But the conviction of fragrant criminals is
becoming conspicuously rare in our large
cities, and less and less certain in the towns
and villages. Indeed, the miscarriage of
justice through the failure of juries, has
become a very frequent occurrence, and the
tendency in that direction, is certainly from
bad to worse. That the facts are as thus
stated it is vain to deny nor is it wise to close
our eyes to their ominous significance. If
there is no way to reform the system. by all
means let it be abolished and let the courts
hear and decide in all trials.
But the system in its present form is radi-
cally defective. That it served so good a
purpose as it did in former years, is to the
credit of the people and not of the system.
That it is decidedly out of harmony with the
genius of our government. In everything
else connected with our institutions, we de-
eide by majority. No other instance can
be named where unanimous vote is required.
But not only is this feature of the system in
conflict with our institutions, it is also palpa-
bly, weak and vicious. The juror who in
sisted that "the other eleven were the most
stubborn men he ever knew" furnishes an
illustration at one point. One self-willed,
narrow-minded, prejudiced or partial man
can tie up jury, force disagreement, de-
feat justice, and impose heavy burdens of ex-
pense, where there is no compromising return.
Or, one corrupt man may exert the same
dangerous power in spite of the efforts of all
his honest associates. Now it is not safe to
take for granted that not even one of the
twelve is liable to be either incompetent or
corrupt And then it often occurs that large
interests are at stake and that the motive for
seeking to corrupt the jury is very great. If
the defeat of justice can be reached by tam
pering with one man, the inducement to
make the attempt and also the likelihood of
succeeding are very much greater, than as II
there could be no success without corrupting
several Now it is bad policy and weak
craftsmanship to suspend such vast interests
upon the presumption, that not even one of
the twelve in an ordinary jury is either in
competent, corrupt, or capable of being cor
rupted. Is it not perfectly clear that there
ought to be such change as will enable
juries to convict without requiring unani-
nous vote?
Now it may be said that our grand juries
do decide by majority vote, and yet they
often do some marvelously strange things.
This is true, and the fact is by no means
assuring, as to the possibility of reforming the
jury system. The following facts deserve to
be carefully pondered: In parts, at least, of
Ocean county, the laws intended to regulate
{rof3 c1x dicro0ar6o6
Sale to minors, and on the Sabbath filling
pocket TASKS by druggists, and other viola.
tions are conspicuously evident. large
number of complaints were made to the
recent grand jury, but not one of them was
noticed. To suppose that the truth in re-
gard to some of these cases at least, could
not have been brought out had there been an
honest attempt to do so is preposterously
absurd There isn't the shadow of doubt,
that had not majority disregarded the obi
cation of their oath that large number OF
indictments would have been returned. l
am aware many will say this is rash and
unwarranted implication, but it is because
they who so say, are not informed on the
subject. Here is fact of which l am cog
infant: A few years ago complaint was made
against two licensed houses in village not
fifty miles from Camden. The same wit
nesses were used and they gave the same
testimony in both cases. The points were
sale to minors, on the Sabbath and gambling.
On the first vote both were indicted, but one
of them had warm friend on the jury, who
exerted himself till he secured reconsidera-
ton and the removal of the Indictment.
The witnesses had been frequenters of both
houses and had witnessed the things
testified to frequently and for long time
There was no question that the things al
legged were violations of the law, as the wit
nesses were now reformed and steady men
and perfectly reliable. And yet part of the
jurors, in the face of their OATH voted against
indicting either of the men, Some of them
voted for, and then against the bill in the
case of one of them. And they finished the
work, leaving the matter in that shape, the
one condemned and the other free, although
both had precisely the same standing before
them. And the bill against the one was made
to stand before the court on the same testl-
mony, and by the same witnesses, as before
the grand jury. Facts are stubborn things,
and sometimes they wear very ugly face.
Now the right of challenge may afford some
hope for the jury system, if it shall be SO
changed that less than a unanimous vote shall
convict Till then there is no ground to ex-
pect any improvement. But grand jurors are
selected by one man, in private, without con-
sultation, and without any right of challenge
or any liability to be called to account for the
abuse of his prerogative. If there was reason
for changing the manner of drawing petit jur-
ors, as was done a few years ago, there is
-