The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1886-01-27

prIori reasoning toanswer our questions. The
experience Of Courts of Equity Tor many cen
turies furnishes us with all ample solution OIL
the problem. Jury trial was never q consul
tuelit element of that court and yet Equity
has always "deighied to do justice and not
by halves" While the verdict of jury, mas
often been received in that court. 1t has been
merely advisory, and was never binding on
the conscience of the Chancellor, who ulti-
mately passed upon the facts. himself. By
giving Judge or bench OF Judges power To
pass upon the facts as well as the law. IL Is be-
lieved that the three card inal desldcrnta III
the administration Of justice, certainly. econ
omy and promptness, would be materially
promoted.
Advantages in Favor of the Judge.
What reason CAN exist why Judges
can not determine questions OF facts as well
as juries? 1t may be objected that Jurors
bring to the aid of their Investigations Il store
of practical experience and fund of infor-
nation about men and things not to be hoped
for In bench of Judges. But the modern
Judge is no recluse. or hermit. He Is often a
thorough man of The world, and his expert
ence In the affairs Of life Is invariably wider
than that Of the average juror. Besides, he
has the additional consideration in MS favor,
which can not be valued too highly, of a
trained mind which often enables HIM TO de-
tect fullacies and eX pose inconsistencies, EN-.
tlrey hidden from the eyes OF the simple and
unsuspecting juror.
The Aristoeratic and Tyranical Feat.
But another objcctIon is some times
interpesed that Judges are inclined to he ar
btrary and tyrannicu, and that the proposed
change would introduce an aristocratic feat
ure in our government, utterly at variance
with the genius of our institutions. "A plu-
r.lity of Judges sitting together would entire
ly obviate this difficulty, as they would act US
Wholesome checks to each other. But the
safeguards against these evils would be too
numerous and potent to allow them TO t,,,, as,
the Judge have continually before his eyes
tae fear Of a reversal Of his decisions, which
is always intensely mortifying to his profess
sional pride, but the possibility OF removal
from office. or even Of an omission ON the
part of the people to re-elect him would i'm.
pose saIuary restraint on his actions.
Judges are not chosen at random from among
the people, but are selected with special refer
ence to their learning, ability and integrity.
Occupying prominent, position, he is the
cynosllrc Of all ey.s. His outsoings and in
comings are zealously watched, and none OF
his actions escape lynx-eycd public: they
have IL pride of position and an official dignl-
ty TO sustain, which are altogether wanting
in the Juror. They are handsomely salaried,
which is no inconsiderable item IN estimating
the sum of considerations tending TO keep
them in the upright and impartial admins
tratlon OF their duties: The tendency or the
has been already adverted to. Not only would
the process of actual trial he rendered shorter
and simpler by allowing the Judge to pass
upon questions of fact us we'll as law, but IN
be in much better condition to be reviewed by
the appellate court. There would be fewer
grounds OF appeal, and q consequent reuuc-
ti0n in the amount of business which at pres
ent crowds the Supreme Court. large pro
connected with jury trial, such rs misdirec-
ton by the Judge, refusals TO charge. miscon-
duct In the jury, and countless other points
arising out Of that system. jury trial costs
the litIgants and taxpayers of this county, at
low estimate, an average OF two Thousand
dollars year, making the very considerable
amount of ten thousand dollars Tor us nlaih'
tpnance in the entire judicial district. The
addition OF two Judges In EACH circuit even ut
the annual salary of thirty five hundred dol
lars would be Il suhStial pecuniary saving.
This gain Is very materially increased when
we consider that the trial of causes would bc
rendered speedier and simpler, the number OF
the business interests of the country would
suffer no interruption by the sessions of the
court. In view OF these facts. | believe the
jury system ought TO be abolished. cau-
tious and conservative public opinion may
not be prepared at present to sanction any
sWeepiny innovations on an institution which
1t has learned to regard as the palladium oi
civil and political liberty; but let the work OF
not vestige OF this antiq quated and unrelin.
bile system Shall remain to mar the symmetry
of our law.
The Discussion of the Essay.
At the conclusion of the reading Of the es'
say, the President invited each member and
each guest in turn TO make any criticism OF
The paper which he thought proper. Without
any reference to the order In which they
come, and any effort to exactitude Of expires.
sion, the following report is made:
Mr.. Ellis &. Graydon said he was in favor OF
trial by Jury and would be opposed TO any
change. He thought trial by jury absolutely
essential TO the peace and security OF society
in criminal cases and In actions connecting
in tort. 1t would not be objectiona ble to refer
bench OF judges. One Of the main arguments
for Jury trial is that juries, from their very or
gnnfzation. are less liable 10 lean to power
They are drawn from the masses of the pe0'
plc and when the term Of the Court ends
they 20 back amongst the people. They, are
not responsible to anybody for their verdlctS,
and never are more certain to act with inde'
pendence. Another argument for the Jury
syst EN- is that 1t has been tried fora long time
and has been found to work well He would
confidently assert, and believed any lawyer
present would agree with him that the per-
centage Of improper verdicts rendered by Ju'
rleS IS very Slllall.
Judge Pressly upheld the present jury sys.
tenn. He thought that nineteen times out ol
twenty the juries rendered verdictS which nc-
corded with his own opinions He would dis.
like very much TO see the law changed SO as
to make it the duty of the Judge TO render
verdicts. He thought upon the whole, that
the submission OF causes to the jury was safer
and better than IN the hands of an officer OF
tie government. -.
the essayist. He Thought that the personal
popularity of the client had about as much To
do with the verdictas the justice OF the cause.
The vote in the jury room depended 100 much
on the popularity or unpopuarity of the par
ties to the issue, and he was in sympathy with
the proposition of the essayist to make the
Court officer Judge OF the facts as we'll us Oh
the law.
the best that had ever been devised. He pre-
ferred to trust his cause to the jury. l! the
Jury should make mistakes OF law the Court
could correct them.
Mr.. S, G.. Cason supported the jury system.
II was the administration of justice by the
peope-by the neighbors and friends OF inc
parties at issue. Even if the adm Illustration
of Justice should be no better by Jurles IMAM
by Judges. It would he more satisfactofH ;;oen 10
the people than If administered ny an o1ilcer
of the government.
Col. O. r. Calhoun was entirely In favor OF
continuing the jury system. He feared the
proposition of denying the people the rlght 10
sit on jurieS. He knew rom PerSonhi eApe,,-
ence aS a lawyer, that it would be dangerous
to trust the decision Of causes to Judges: re
defended the parties charged with the Mad
doX murder. They came into Court three
times. and he believed that the Judge would
have hanged them, but the jury turned them
loose.
Mr. W. n. Graydon thought the present SHs-
tenn good enough. Old laws, like old wine,
were often better than the new
Mr. NJ. p. DcBruhl had faith In the old SSS-
tenn, He had been impressed with the danger
allowing Judges TO decide cases. ~
Mr. Hcnct thought trial by jury was better
than trial by newspaper. He thought, howev-