St. Paul daily globe., 1889-02-06
the constitutionality of such change.
A verdict of twelve men is in all cases
safer than nine, ] think it might woi h

the cOnSUtutl0nallty or such q CnanSo.
A verdict of twelve men is in all cases
safer than nine. ] think it might woi h
injustice.
nj. p. Brewer-It would be good
thing; would facilitate agreement and
save good deal of trouble. 1t might,
l think, increase the number of cases.
A verdict of nine men is apt to be mole
nearly right than that of twelve.
Col. Benton-I am in favor of three
quarter verdict. 1t will never work in
Justice. There are certain men who
hang about the court house and are
: bound to get on the jury ami1 Who MAKE
point to tie it up. 1t will prevent
new trials and be a good thing for all.
John w. Arctander-I am most en-
phatically in favor of the change, es-
pecially so as have seen so many rail-
way companies or other corporations
manage in some way to get some one
on the jury to hang out in spite OF the
evidence, or at least to reduce the YER
diet to such an amount as is perfectly
satisfactory to the corporation. The
amendment will prevent any one from
working this little game, OF at least 1t
will make it more difficult of execution.
One man on jury may be bought, but
it would be found pretty hard to buy
three or more.
Robert Jamison Any interference
with the present jury system, time
honOred institution, is certainly serious,
and one to be given the greatest consld-
Grafton before change is made. EX-
perience has demonstrated that the con-
clusionS of twelve men in the decision
of case is preferable to a decision
without unanimity. Where the law re-
quires that there shall be united
Judgment of twelve men there is more
probability of reaching a just decision
of law than when the Judgment of the
twelve men is divided.
A. B. Bunting-I have been practic-
ing since 1865, and prior to 1870 adVo-
Gated it. The matter was discussed in
the New York Herald. and large num-
Der of lawyers gave their opinion. If
there is one man on the jury prejudiced
to one of the parties in the suit. justice
can not be done. 1t seems to me that it
would be good plan to have the YER
dict consist Of say three-fourthS of a
jury of twelve. 1t would then be Pc
culiar case if verdict were not re-
turned.
Arthur II. Noyes--I am opposed to
the innovation, as l believe that the
present jury system, as it stands now,
is preferable to anything that radical
Of course, the change would not apply
except in civil eases, and / must say
that my experience has not been such
as to make me believe in the general
misconduct Of juries.
A. M. HarriSon-I think that it would
be good thing. l have always been in
favor of a majority verde as to my
way of thinking it would facilitate Dusi-
ness, and prevent one or two jurors
from controlling a verdict which they
had no right to control. Then again, a
three-quarter-jury would get at the
right verdict as often, or even more SO,
than jury OF twelve.
W. r. Cray-In my opinion it would
hardly be worth while to make a change
in system which has stood the test so
long. II the present jury system is to
be retained in the trial of civil causes, |
do not see any reason why the verdict
should be left to less than twelve men.
To my mind there would he more force
in an argument to abolish the jury syS-
tenn in civil cases entirely.
Albert Knittie-I do not believe in
making any change of any kind, as it
would be taking the first step toward
mOnarcNy. I0ere was Glmo Wnon
men foug and died to have jury trials
arranged the way they now are. and
simply because we are not used to it, we
do not half appreciate it.
Frank NJ. Nye-It would be good
thing in civil cases, as three-fourths
majority in such matters will give JUS
tice in more eases and will prevent
many disagreementS.
g. W. NJ. Pittman-As applied to
civil cases. think 1t would be all right,
as it would save a tremendous expense
In trying cases over twice. The only
thing Objectionable to the change that [
can see would be the breaking in on
our present jury system.
j. Welch-lt seems to me that such a
plan would be virtually reducing the
number of jurors to eight. You might
just as well cut the panel down at once
and have done with it.