Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-10-23

emn oath known to the law? Can any
defense be made for itp Certainly the
power of the jury shields it from punish
ment in all such cases, but it cannot shield
it from the moral condemnation OF vio-
lated oath sealed by an appeal to the SUI
preme Being.
Judge Hayne takes issue with De Tee
queville and Bentham that the purpose of
the jury SYSTEM is to teach men equity, and
every man to judge his neighbor as he
would be judged. He holds that its pur-
pose is to assist the administration of JUS
tice, and any educating influences attach
ing to it are wholly incidental and collat-
eral, a conclusion that is certainly forcible
But in either view in the cases instanced
there was miscarriage Of justice and failure
to learn equity.
If, in the cases cited, the determination
of the facts had been left to the Courts,
neither of them would have dared to rem
der such verdicts as did the two iuries.
Had they done so, impeachment would have
| followed, and the men wearing the ermine
would have been branded as perjured. Yet
the two juries did precisely the evil thing
the Courts dare not do. Yet between the
oath of the Judges and the oath of the
Jurors there is no difference. The obliga-
ton resting upon the former to obey the
law is no more binding than on the latter.
1t may be said in mitigation that a jury
lectured upon the law by Court is liable
to misapply it to the facts; to misunder-
stand it, and thus work miscarriage Of
justice, as Judge Hayne suggests. That
this is often done there can be no doubt
and this liability is the strongest argument
to be made against the jury system. But
in the cases cited this excuse cannot avail,
since the charge was too plain to make any
involvement in an ordinary mind at all
probable We are driven to the conclusion
therefore, that the juries deliberately and
purposeIy cheapened and violated the oath,
in favor of their ideas of what the law
should be, forgetting that the best way to
secure the repeal Of an obnoxious statute
is to enforce it rigidly, and that the sole
duty of the jury IS to obey the law.
In capital cases we all know that men on
juries frequently accommodate their oaths
to their conscientious scruples regarding
the extreme penalty for man killing. But
the result is, as has been well said, :" in
variably bad, for bad men are not deferred
from crime, and take the even chance
whether jury will punish them" Henry
H. Wilson, a late essayist on and defender
of the jury system, says the decision of the
fact is the province of the jury, and wisely
separated from that of the Court. If the
jury find the facts in a criminal case ever
so enormously, their decision must stand
if for the defendant, and this,
even though the verdict is directly
opposed to the instruction of the Court
This power every jury appreciates, and
behind it are fortified any number of in
consistent verdicts, and the sentiment"
that is father of so many false verdicts
But Mr.. Wilson well says if the jury fails
to follow the instructions of the Court in
all matters of law they are false to their
! trust"
But though the moral tone of the jury is
lowered by such exhibitions as these cited, it
is not thinkable that jurors consider these
acts morally criminal They justify them
for various reasons, and false verdicts are
by no means to be assumed to be the result
of corruption in the jury-box.
The jury system is now being vigorously
assailed. 1t is proposed to strip it, and
transfer the function of fact-finding to the
Judges. All such verdicts as we have
described strengthen and encourage the
assailants. But the system must stand.
We cannot conceive that the people will
give it up. That transfer of its powers to
the bench would be an advance we do not
/ believe, but the reasons that crowd forward
for the belief cannot now be recounted.
| But this understandable for its concise
ness-may be quoted from Wilson's able
defense as q text for thought: "A finding
of fact in one case cannot, from the nature
Of the circumstances, be any aid in deter
mining another set Of facts upon different
evidence i'll another case. Hence a find
ing of fact, or a verdict of a jury,
can have no authority as a pre-
cedent But a determination of a
principle of law is final, not only in that
particular case, but in all similar cases in
that jurisdiction. 1t is this separation of
the trial of the law and the facts that has
enabled our Courts to build up, develop
and unity our system Of jurisprudence. If
jury taints the waters for a moment, to
become pure again, corrupt judge poisons
at its head the fountain from which we
must drink"