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


In a recent trial in this city the Court
charged the jury that the law prohibits any
person erecting or maintaining within Ger
tain territory any kind of slaughter-house,
or any pit or pool or vat for tanners uses.
The Court charged also that to constitute a
criminal violation of the law there must
exist union OF act and intent That if the
jury found from the evidence, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the defendants
did on given day erect or maintain
within the prescribed limits, any house to
be used as a slauglter-house, it was the
duty of the jury to find the defendants
guilty. You have nothing 10 do with the
manner in which the defendants kept,
maintained or used their straightforward.
The simple and sole question is, Did they
keep or maintain a slaugLter-house within
the city limits? If they did, AMI you so
find from the evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt, then it will be your duty to find
verdict of guilty"
That a slaughter-house was maintained
by defendants within the city limits was
proved and admitted The jury returned
a verdict of mot guilty
This is parallel to the case in San
Francisco some years ago. where baggage
lost was valued at 100, and the value
was undisputed. The sole issue was the
responsibility of defendants. The Court
charged that if the jury found the defend
ants to have been negligent, etc. it must
find for plaintiff, and as the value of the
goods was admitted, in that case the duty
of the jury was to assess the damage at
81 800. The jury returned verdict for
plaintiff. with the damages assessed at 800
In the present case we have nothing TO
do with the question raised 10 that defend
ants were being prosecuted under a
statute that had long slumbered.n Nor
do We question in any manner the
good citizenship and integrity of the de
PENDANTS, nor are we concerned at all about
the equities of their case. What we have
to consider is the act of the jury under the
charge. Did the jury ignore its oath, rise
defiant TO the law and declare that not to
be fact, which was admitted and proven to
be fact?
Between the two cases there can be found
no appreciate difference. In both, the
jurors deliberately disobcycd the charge of
the Court and the mandate Of the law.
and imperied one Of the chief safe
guards of free institutions. Attach
ment to the jury system is one of the
indicia of enlightenment and De Tocquc-
vile declared that this attachment increases
with the increasing cultivation Of nation.
But what of the moral tone of a people
where the mandate of the law made by the
people is by the people so coolly defed 1t
is not a mere impcrfee,ion Of the jury sys-
tenn but a manifestation of growing disre-
Spect for the law that in full development
leads to anarchy.
Wisely or not, our system leaves for the
Court in the majority Of cases. the deter
minaGon of the law. and TO the Jury the
settlement Of the questions of fact. 1t is
part of the system that the jury is as much
bound by the Interpretation of its duty BIZ
inc Npt1It Us DF IT'S Odsu. II mas been SuL-
gested that the sentiment of a people is the
law, and superior to the enacted will as
represented by statutes, and that therefore
juries may express their sentiment, even
as against the written law and the oath 10
obey it. But the Ter scr;pta is the result of
the aggregate representative win Of all the
people in a form Of self-government, while
a jury can represent but a divided or
partial expression of the popular will
While the law remains therefore it must
be taken to be the present and highest will
of the people, and be respected as such
Nevertheless, we have scores of laws that
are dead letters, ignored by the people and /
their servants, the officials and the jurieS, |
and no penalty under them can be en-
forced. Notably in the Illicit house and !
the Sunday law cases. In the latter liquor
selling on Sunday was admitted on the
stand by the defense and the fact of liquor
selling was the only issue; vet the iuries
uniformly falsely found that LIQUOR was
not sold on that day Here, then. the Jury
rose superior TO the law But what is to
be said of this defiance of the most SOL