Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1885-09-03


which must be collected from the people
IN the way of taxes or from the unsuc-
cessful party TO the SUIT, Is true; but that
it is 80 in the sense of extravaganza, or of
costing more than the return received
for it is worth, IS quite another question,
and the only legitimate one to be con !.
s,dered. 10 consider this question we
must put dollars and cents on one end of
the scale and justice and tile rights of
man on the other, and the mere state
ment of the proposition IS sufficient to
answer the question. This the Judge dis
creetly avoids and tacitly admits by un-
dertaking to show that the same or bet
ter results can be obtained in a more
economic way. TO do this he proposes
to abrogste the jury and invest the Judge
with the prerogatives OF that adjunct of
the court.
In support of this plan he elaborates
upon the lncompetency Of jurles, as a
rule, to analyze facts of evidence and ap-
ply the law thereto. He thinks juries
fail in this ninety mine times out Of every
hundred, and if this estimate Is even ap
proxlmately correct it would not only he
a strong point against the jury system
but would be an insurmountable objec-
ttion. But is this true? Is it sustained
by the evidence The judge may be sus-
pected Of making up his opinion from the
narrow range of his sewn jurisdiction and
from that standpoint .condemning the
whole jury system Of cosmopolitan range,
which has stood the test OF over six hun
dred years, antedating Magma Cbarta it.
self; q system that supplantcd the torture
of red hot iron and boiling water as the
test OF the guilt or innocence of the party
accused of CRIME; a safeguard to life and
liberty embodied in the constitution of
our nation, and one which no state or ter
r'tory has power to withhold from its
people.
The evidence Of the comparative com.
potency of judge and jury is largely doc
umentary and is found in the bills of ex-
ccp,lon on file III the archives of the
higher courts in cases OF appeal. In such
cases we think it safe to assume that nine
exceptions are taken to the rulings Of the
judge to every one made to the verdict of
the jury. In the decisions of the higher
courts reversing and remanding cases the
declaration that I''the court elred' in
ruling so and SO Of in admitting or refus-
ing 10 admit such and such evidence oc-
ours ten times to every once that the YER
dict of the jury iB cited as excessive or
not sustained by the evidence. 1t would
seem from the record that the courts err
abont ten times more than the juries co.
and making that the standard of utility
in suoservlDG the ends of justice the un.
avoidable conclusion would be that, OF
the two, the courts instead of the jurles
should he abolished.
1t is true, as the judge asserts, that IN
some criminal cases the jury shields the
defendant from the penalty of the Jaw,
as in the Dukes Mutt case in Pcnnsylva-
MIA. In addition to this we will add that
there IS no appeal from the verdict of ac-
qu,ttal by jury, and that the jury IS not
legally responsible to any law or tribunal
of human institution for their verdict
.jurlcs may be swayed more by public
sentiment than judges are, but deliberate
pubnc sentiment IS at last the supreme
law of the land and is generally right.
One-man power ls dangerous. To
place the lives and liberties OF persons ac-
cused Of crime in the power OF the judges
OF our courts would be long step back
wards. They are neither infallible in
judgment nor impervious to the influence
of prejudice. However learned IN the
law they may be they are liable to be
swayed by UNCONSCIOUS prejudice the same
as jurymen. 1t IS not probable nor hard.
ly in the range of possibility that twelve
jurymen will be Influenced by the same
feeling OF prejudice in any case, and as
their verdict must be unanimous the prob
abilities are in favor OF the elimination Of
nearly or quite all prejudccs before a
verdict can be reached.