The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1885-06-20
REGENTS PRIZE ESSAY.
"Should Trial by Jury be Abol-
ished in Civil Cases?
BY b. c. WILSON.
Published by Special Request.

In tne discussion oil a question
like this, it is almost impossible to
keep sentiment from overpowering
better judgment The desire to
be on the side of public opinion,
coupled. with general antipathy
toward innovations of any kind on
the one hand, and a dread of being
called a theorist on the other, aid
in keeping this spirit afloat. Even
in America we act in accordance
with fixed precedents and the title
of 'freethinker" has grown into a
term of reproach.
In all countries and all ages GER
tain ideas have been found so pleas
ing to the national vanity as to be
regarded as the most fundamental
of truths They have descended
as heirlooms from generation to
generation and have been prime
factors in the education of youth
as well as sources of enjoyment 4or
maturer age To doubt them is
sacrilege, and to deny them is a
crime
at is no wonder then" says a
learned writer, that it seems a
daring and presumptuous think to
attack as useless a system upon
which SO many writer's, both lay
and legal. have bestowed so much
eulogy.
We do not question the fact that
the jury system has been very ben
efcial in its day and was entitled
to all the praise and encomiums
bestowed upon it at that time.
A system however which may have
been both beneficial and necessary
to the people. of the fourteenth
century may not by any means
prove the best to be enforced among
the free institutions of the United
States, for to the United States we
presume the discussion of this ques-
ton is confined.
The benehcent results of juries
have been more manifest in those
countries in which the sovereign
power is vested in one person, and
where the different castles rise in reg
ular gradations, than in republics.
Noprotection is needed against the
mighty in America, for as citizens
all are equal. No bulwark need
be placed between the American
citizen and his sovereign, for he is
the sovereign himself, and in him
rests the responsibility of power.
Shorn Of this its greatest usefulness,
the jury system seems threadbare
indeed. 1t stands before an UNI
prejudiced observer in aImost.the
same light as the "Lictor's Rod.
1t is kept in the code Of procedure
more for the good it has done than
for any advantages it may now
have.
The mere matter of pecuniary
expense should be enough to con
vince SO material people as those
OF the United States. A careful
computation which any one may
make at his leisure, based on the
very lowest estimates will show that
the jury system in civil cases alone
costs the people of the several
states as much as their entire legis-
lative and judicial systems combin-
ed. But the actual expense is but
half the real cost to the country.
The merchant leaves his counter,
the mechanic his shop, and the
farmer his pillow, to serve on the
panel and perhaps idle around the
courthouse for an indefinite time,
allowing because he cannot help
iD his own affairs to be neglected
to the detriment of himself and the
public.
But we are willing to admit that
the cost Of the jury system should
not stand in its way if it serves its
purpose in securing the best admin
istration of justice. That it does
not do this in civil cases at least
and therefore should be abolished
in such cases not only on account
of its inefficiency, but if shown in
efficient, then doubly SO on account
OF its enormous expense, we shall
endeavor to demonstrate.
A distinguished writer has said
that the most reckless professional
gambler, who as rule will bet
upon either side of anything, invar-
iably refuses to risk his money and
professional reputation upon the
verdict of a jury. The shrewd law
yer whose years of experience have
taught him the uncertainty of juries,
when asked by the anxious client
as to the probable result of his suit
replies, that he seeks to know what
is beyond mortal ken.
How can we expect the citizen
who is forced to leave his employ
ment and is dragged into court to
| decide a suit between his friends
and neighbors, where the amount
involved is perhaps an insignificant
sum and in which he can not be in
terested to be able to arrive at a
correct decision. He is locked up,
often in very uncomfortable quart
, ers, until the jury agrees, and it is
no unusual thing for him to be kept
: weeks from his family and place Of
business and, disguised, he often
yields his opinion to that of Others
: in order that he may be released.
: He does not follow the adjudication
' of causes for living His is not
the profession of sitting evidence
He has no reputation to establish
and cares little to have the Supreme
Court reverse his decision. He is
,, always the scapegoat upon whom
the blame of an unjust decision is
! laid, yet the indemnity of a jury i:
, so indefinite that no single juror
/ can be punished or even censured,