The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1885-06-20

But these objections are as varied
as the directors; what one man
considers the soul and body of the
institution another thinks a defect
in this otherwise excellent mode of
trial. For instance one common
tator says, the jurors should be
educated, ~selected for some pecu-
liar qualification in order that all
this ignorance which causes them
to use the judge as a sort of head
while they act the more subservient
part of hands, may be laid aside.
Another thinks ii weak point that
the jury must be unanimous before
it can render a verdict. He thinks
it is trusting too much power in
the hands of one or the other of the
litigants thus enabling him if his
case is for any reason considered
weak, to have twelve men to APP
proach with corrupt purpose and
if he can succeed in gaining the IA
vor of single juror, no matter by
what means. although his case may
be very weak and he himself try
ing to perpetrate fraud on the
opposite party, he can keep his
opponent from getting verdict.
Still another considers it wrong
that jury is drawn by lot which
gives a great uncertainty to the
whole affair and leaves a chance
for ignorant, malicious men to be
called upon to act in the capacity
of the most august tribunal in the
world
Now these are very gross defects
and defects which would have been
remedied long ago if it had been
possible to do SO. 1t looks absurd
to think of an ignorant jury trying
to determine a suit in which ques
ton of patent right is involved. 1t
looks like a mock at justice to see
an illiterate jury wisely passing
upon the validity Of will or some
such complicated civil case. Nor
is it less absurd when you imagine
that one man can hold eleven con
trary men helpless as it were by
his opinion. Yet he can do this
and by some peculiar method his
wisdom is considered equal to the
combined wisdom of eleven men
whenever he is stubborn enough
to hold out amid their persuasions.
How can we possibly remove these
faults of our old time honored relic
If one seeks to have an educated
jury he goes exactly opposite to
the intention of the jury system,
for that a mans property is in the
hands of his equals is the funda-
mental principle of trial by jury.
If one could change it SO as to make
the verdict of majority valid he
would be doing away with the very
soul and body of the system for il
requires the unanimous decision Of
twelve of a mans peers to secure
verdict and he would after al
leave the casting vote in the hands
of one man. If juries should be
chosen, instead of drawn by lot,
the very essence would be again
taken out Of trial by jury. Thus
the jury appears. 1t has admitted
defects enough to condemn any
thing which has a less solid foun
dation than it or the celebration Of
the fourth of July. But what shall
we do? Shall we recognize the
defects Of the system as necessary
evils or shall we use some means
to remedy them? There is but
one remedy and that is to do away
entirely with the system in those
cases where the defects are most
obvious, or in other words in Gin.
cases. The salient points are not
SO plain in criminal cases, for the
guilt or innocence of the prisoner
is the only thing to be decided up
on and besides there is that idea
that the jury is bulwark Of pro
lection for the innocent which
would make the abolition of it less
reconcilable with public opinion,
than in civil cases.
A learned writer upon the jury
system, Alexis De Focqueville,
says: "1f it was my purpose tc
inquire how far trial by jury, espe
cially in civil cases, insures a gooc
administration of justice, admit
that its utility might be contested
AS the jury was first established
when society was in its infancy anc
when courts of justice merely de
cided simple questions of fact, it is
not an easy task to adapt it to the
wants of highly civilized commu
nifty, when the mutual relations o
men are multiplied to a surprising
extent and have assumed an en-
lightened and intellectual char
acter. " He says that as judicia
institution its utility might be con
tested, thus virtually admitting i
to be failure. Then in order tc
say something in its favor, he view'
it as a political institution ane
t praises it as an educator of the
masses. To what straits are the
defenders of the system driver
when they are compelled to aban
don its legitimate sphere and seel
, its good results in an entirely differ
, ent direction
t But if the jury system is an ed
ucator of the masses it gives then
an education at a fearful cost, anc
an education not always prolific o
the best results. The jurymar
may learn a few law phrases ane
occasionally something of the pro
ceedings of the court, but this i!
more than offset by the evil inhu
ences to which he is subjected il