The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1888-02-08
Drawing the JurieS.

Drawing the Juries.
The report Of irregularity in the draw
ing OF the jury for this Court is notorious, and
the criticisms of former jurics is known Of all
men. The lawyers in this instance were in
duty bound to take notice of the rumor, and
Mr.. Benet and Colonel Gary objected to the
jury because Of the report. In consequence,
some members of the Jury Commission were
put upon the witness stand.
It would seem to an outsider that the Court
made no very great effort to sift the matter
and to set aside the doubt,-we might almost
say the belief-which has been created in the
minds Of the people as to the illegality of the
drawing Of the jury.
The composition Of the juries for years back
has often been the subject OF remark, and
now when it is sought to settle the matter def
initely, shall the question be showed under,
slurred over. hurried from public gaze, and
forever buried out Of sight?
No; this Is too serious matter, and will not
down, even at the bidding of his Honor the
Circuit Judge.
Is 1t not due to the Jury Commissioners
themselves that the fullest and clearest eX-
PLANTATION be made?
Should not our judge Solicitor and lawyers
make diligent and earnest effort to settle this
rumor definitely according to the facts?
The public welfare demands that the people
have the utmost confidence In the legality of
the Courts Can they have that confidence. If
no proper effort is made to correct the rumor
that our Juries are illegally drawn?
Is the Court more legal than an organized
mob, II its juries are not drawn according to
the forms Of law?
Wherein is the Court better than mob? Is
1t not in the fact that the Court is regulated
by the forms OF law? Then shall chosen Off.
GERS who are expected to enforce the laws OF
the land, whereby we are protected in our
lives and our liberties, be denied the opportu-
nifty Of defending themselves. and satisfying
the public that all is we'll?
Will this people be forced to the conclusion
that Judge Norton, who took an oath to OBJ
serve and enforce the laws Of this country,
will consent to preside over an organized
mob7
VIII he, as good q man as ever sat on the
Bench in South Carolina, without first inves.
tigating the charge, consent to hold Court,
the legality OF whose Jurles is questioned?
VIII he do nothing to protect the fair fame
OF this Temple which was erected to Justice,
and dedicated to the enforcement of law and
order in the proudest of all the States?.
Cannot the innocent, as well as the guilty,
look to this temple for vindication and JUS
tice? If so, why did the Court refuse to allow
the Sheriff an opportunity to eXonerate him.
self from the charge, which, If true, made this
Court Itself nothing more nor less than an Or
ganized mob, usurping the powers and duties
Of legally organized Court?
It can be proven beyond the shadow of q
doubt that at least two Of the Board Of Jury
Commissioners, made statements going to
prove the correctness Of the statements made
in the Press and Banner in reference to the ex-
clusion Of Mr.. r. E. Hill from the jury.
The evidence Of the Chairman Of the Board
Of County Commissioners in open Court Is 10
the effect, that
There was a great deal said about distrib-
uting the grand jury over the county, and TO
try TO get the best men,"
We believe the Court erred not only in re-
fusing Mr.. DuPre hearing, but we think the
Court owed 1t to the Chairman of the County
Commissioners to allow him an opportunity
to explain why "a great deal was said about
distributing the grand jury over the county"
Did the Board Of Jury Commissioners have
any right to parcel out the jury? Is there
any law for 1t? II not, the Jury Commission
er should be allowed an opportunity to ex-
plain the systematic division OF Jurors.
We ask the question, and we hope 1t will be
answered, If the jury itself is not selfevident
that there Is mystery about its compost
tlon?
Another matter which the Court should
have allowed the Chairman Of the County
Commissioners to explain is, why did they
tyto get The best men, if the law prescribes that
the first eighteen names taken from the box
shall constitute the grand jury? We submit
that these words, unexplained, may not satis-
fy the public.
The Court held that the following question
by Mr.. Gary to Clerk Zeigler was Irrelevant
II simply want to know If 1t had not been
agreed by the majority of the Board that he
lfiilll should be grand juror. and that after,
waras objection was made, and he was strick.
Can any living man under the face Of the
sun give the least shadow Of q good reason
why the question should not be answered?
twill also be noted that Sheriff DuPre said
he "would like to made q statement" and
that the Court refused the request.
Why was the request refused: That Is the
question?
1t was due to the Board Of Jury Commits.
Bioners, TO the Sheriff, to the Court and to all
the people Of Abbeville county, that as far as
possible, every doubt be removed as to the le'
gality Of the jury. Then why not let the
Sheriff make his statement?
That justice may be done, and that no pub
lie officer may have cause for complaint, the
columns Of the Press and Banner are open for
the Sheriff to make the statement which the
Court suppressed. -
We submit that more effort, and more time
has been expended in investigating the
charge, against prisoner, for stealing pig,
than has been given to the establishment OF
the fact as to whether this is legally organ
lied Court or whether it is the usurpatiou OF
an unlawful mob.
Presumption Rights.
The brethren Of the press who may claim
exclusive rights in any territory Of South
Carolina should set up preemptlon claims,
and advertise the fact, so that no brother edi-
tor may innocently offend by getting on their
territory. We are struck with the regularity