The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1889-08-07
Wednesday. August Z, 1889
Enough.

u does Seem that the end Of the controVer-
s,tv about the trial Of DR.. Mellow is not soon
40 come. We have had limo upon line and
preceprup on precept, here little and there n
little. until the readers of theNe,os and CoAr-
;er are really tired Of the discussion. We have
hadJ,o wade through columns Of copied editor
ials read extended extracts Of sermons denver
ed from the Charleston pulpit; felt Illuminated
that the Presiding Judge should haye allow
ed himself to have been drawn into contro-
yersity in regard to his views Of the Verdic1'
and lastly been treated to al article from
.Civis," which it is our purpose now speci-
ally to notice. The pieco is written lot the
purpose OF suggesting some changes IN tne
present mode Of trial by jury solely as ne says
because of "the outcome OF a recent crlmlnal
trial in Charleston" Like many others VINO
have discussed the subject he Is leu 1nto tne
mistake, andhis position Is therefore, neces'
ssrily weakened, Of thinking that the COURTS
with all of their compor ent parts, are estao-
nshed for the sole purpose of convicting the
accused. What we desire to notice particu'
larly in the article referred to is. the structure
ON that part of the constitution which pro-
htbit the Judge, in his charge to the jury
from expressing his opinion upon the lacts OF
the case. Without knowing whether "ClVls
is an old man or young man, we would con
clude that he is the former. 1t Is hard 1or
old age to believe that new order OF things
is ever preferable to the old.
It seems that "before the war,"-every thing
good according to many occurred then,-a
Judge had the right TO express his opinion
upon the facts OF q case to the jury, as well
as the power Of stating the law for their guid-
ance. We think the law as now contained III
our constitution is far better. Almost every
one who has experience In the trial OF causes
In our Courts, knows that the opinion Of
Judge, because Of his power, has great ana Oh
tentimes undue weight with jury. II dur
ing trial the Judge were allowed to state MS
views upon the facts, as we'll as PROFOUND the
law, It would be In the bounds OF reason 10
say that the verdict, In large majority OF
cases, would be the Judges and not the jury's
II this is true, the jury would be useless
and expensive part Of the Court and should
be done away with.
But is prepoterous to conclude that aJudge,
however learned, is more capable of coming
to correct conclusion upon the facts Of
case than q jury of ordinary intelligence.
Judges have their prejudices as well as other
men, and display them just as often, when
opportunity is afforded. They conceive the
idea that one side is in the right and uncon-
soiously espuose that cause. They can.
not do otherwise-they are human. We sup
pose It would occur about as often that the
Judge would be as favorable to the accused
as to the State. But this would be against
the view OF "Civis," for If the opinion OF
many is correct, the Judge in the Mellow
case was favorable in his rulings to the :pris-
oner, consequently the verdict would not
have been different, II the Judge had express
ed his opin ion upon the facts. "Civis." how
ever, It seems desired a conviction, yet If
his Views should prevail justice would still
miscarry.
All Of this fault-inding is essentially wrong
We have laws as good and as perfect in the
main as any people, and all that's necessary
for us to do is to obey and respect them
when written in the books and also when
pronounced by the courts. To continually
change the law is to create distrust Of the
law, which is the bane Of society.