New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-12-29
JURTES IND POPULAR FEELING.

Jury trial was once considered the palladium
of liberty. For many generations 1t served
noble purpose as the only breakwater between
arbitrary power and individual right But Oh
late years it has fallen greatly in public favor
particularly on this side of the Atlantic, wnere
it is assumed that under government OF the
people and for the people there can be no
arbitrary power to endanger the liberties OF the
citizen. Frequent miscarriages of justice, the
great delay and difficulty in getting tit Jurymen
to serve in important cases, and the frequent
suspicion that juries have been fixed In the
process of selection or corrupted afterward'
have weakened public confidence IN the syS-
TEN. The revelations now made regarding
what occurred in the Cronin jury will be
ant 70 give new force to the question whether
trial by Jury has not outlived its usefulness.
Without discussing the details OF that as
closure. it may be said that large proportion
of the people at Chicago, and many wherever
the evidence has been followed, have felt that
the failure to hang any one OF the accused was
another collapse of the jury system and that 1t
was brought about by one man, whose conduct
justifies suspicion either OF strong preJuolce
or of corrupt influence.
thing can be found that is certainly better, has
been more than any other trait the secret OF
Anglo Saxon success and progress. Is it clear
that, in place of trial by jury with unanimous
agreement required to convict any other meth
cd would reach better results? The most COM
mon suggestion is that the decision of less than
the whole number of jurors should suffice to
convict. This. it is said would render futile
the many devices now employed for reaching
and cOrrupting one or two men after their
selection or getting one or two corrupt or
preiudiced men selected. But because it would
then make no difference if one or two improper
persons were chosen there would be incom-
parably less care taken to guard against the
choice of such men. With less care it might
happen that a third, or even half, of the jury
men could be improperly Influenced or selected
as often as single juror can now.
French methods of trial in criminal cases
have had considerable favor in times past. But
it is only fair to say that, as larger lnforma-
ton of their workings has reached the people
of this country, the feeling has grown that
abuses which are possible and not in
frequent under the French system would not
be tolerated here The extraordinary power
of officials charged with the investigation of a
crime, the seclusion of the accused from friends
or counsel at the discretion of the Judge the
remarkable latitude allowed in questioning as
if the guilt of the accused were already demon
strated beyond doubt, and the almost unlimited
opportunity for abuse and oppression which
that system gives to prejudiced official, make
prudent men doubt seriously whether strict
justice would be more frequently attained by
French than by American methods
There is tyranny, even in a republic. Pub
lie opinion is not always infallible, but it is
apt to be intOerant. When the great
majority of people in any community has be-
cused, and newspapers are filled with essen
tally one-sded accounts, and officers of the
law from the highest to the lowest are fired
with zeal to satisfy the popular demand and
Jurors have TO be selected from a population
thus educated for weeks or months in one way
of thinking, there is some reason for holding
il a necessary protection of personal liberty
that jury should at least be unanimous in a
verdict of conviction. The tyranny which may
at times be exercised under such circumstances
could hardly be surpassed by the arbitrary
power of monarch. If jury trial and una
nimity to convict were needed once to defend
the individual against a ruler, it is at least
worthy of consideration whether as much de-
fence is not needed against that tyranny of
public opinion which is not always unerring