Southern standard. (McMinnville, Tenn.) 1879-current, 1889-07-06

derer of Capt. Dawson, suggests the
value of an inquiry into the means
and methods by which favorable YER
diets are so often obtained for crimi-
nails when the law, the evidence and
public sentiment are against them.
Men are not infrequently acquitted
when their guilt is so evident and
popular Indignation at the verdict so
great and so nearly universal that
they cannot live in the community
which upon a legal trial has found
them innocent of the crime charged
against them. The acquittal of Nc
Dow seems to be due to the fact that
the jury was packed with his friends
and enemies of the dead man. But
how did it happen that it was so
packed? 1t was not necessarily the
fault of the Sheriff, though there is a
well-grounded suspicion that he is
not free from blame. But in very
many cases juries are packed when
the Sheriff has done his full duty, fair
ly and impartially. The truth is the
law in nearly, if not all the States is
favorable to the package of juries by
criminals. In the first place, the dis
qualification of a man to sit as juror,
who has formed or expressed an opin-
ion relative to the guilt of the accus-
ed,i a serious bar to obtaining an in
telligent and honest jury in cases of
unusual notoriety. In such case as
the killing Of Capt. Dawson there
could hardly have been man in the
county, intelligent or otherwise, who
had not formed an opinion. These
opinions are based upon hearsay
statements, colored infrequently by
the natural or accidental bias of the
narrator. An intelligent and honest
man, understanding the responsible
ty of juror and the sanctity of an
oath, might easily divest himself OF
all prejudice or preconceived opinion
and decide according to the evidence
he hears from sworn witnesses, eluci-
dated by the argument of counsel and
the charge of the court. But the re-
suit too often is that honest and truth.
full men are excluded as incompetent
while friends of the criminal glibly
periure themselves and are received
as competent jurors. This leaves the
dregs Of the population from which
to select jury. Upon this the State
soon exhausts its few challenges an(
is left at the mercy of the defendant
who, being allowed a much large
number of challenges, can almos
have a jury of his own choosing
Thus the State, with criminal at it
bar, is too often forced to appeal to {
jury of criminals for a vindicatior
of the law. The expert crimina
lawyer finds all the means ofpackin!
a jury and excluding "good and law
full men" ready to his hand. In it
exceedingly great tenderness for hu
man life the law has made it almos
impossible to convict murdere
who has sharp lawyers, plenty @
= money and active friends.
1t seems to us that it is time t
amend same of these laws for tn
encouragement of murder. Their
should be less disparity between tn
number of challenges allowed the dc
PENDANT and the State, and ther
should be less rigor in excluding me
who have formed opinions. PerhaI
, it is unfortunate to have men on
jury who have an opinion previousl
, formed, but it is better than to hav
! men who enter the box with a prt
, determined purpose to defeat the enc
of Justice. With relaxation of tn
law which makes all intelligent an
we'll informed men incompetent [
t try a case of general notoriety thel
would be no necessity for sheri
securing the slums TO find men VIII
, are ignortant enough to be comp
? tent jurors or knaves enough to quail
e fly as such. The law should indee
be merciful, but it should not in i
, anxiety to protect the accused frol
5 the possibility of injustice entirel
! forget the necessity Of protecting II
? State and the people. The mistake
:. mercy which sets murderers free hi
/, shed the blood of many an innocel
5 citizen.