St. Paul daily globe., 1889-02-06
Some Think 1t Would In
crease the Number Of
New Trials.
Others That 1t Would Not
Litigation Would Not Be
Affected.
Great Minds Seem to Disa-
gree--Some See Danger,
Others Relief.

constitutional amendment to abandon
the requirement in civil law suits for
unanimous verdict of twelve Jurymen,
and make valid verdict returned by
three-fourths of the jury. Their an
swers quoted reveal that they do not
agree in their impressions of the work
ings of the law proposed, and some OF
the most prominent lawyers think eX-
actly opposite effects might result
of new trials. In fact, it would affect
that very little because they are gener-
ally taken on law points rather than
because of disagreement of the jury,
A. T. Ankeny-I think it probably
might do in civil eases, but in criminal
eases it would not The juries would
agree easier. and it would settle many
eases. There is rarely civil case that
would not as leave take the verdict of
Judge as of jury. Nine men can de
eide such cases as well as twelve. L
don't want to see any breakdown in
criminal matters, though. There should
always be twelve mems Judgment in all
such cases.
Judge P. NJ. Babcoek-I am in doubt
about it yet. | think that it is in con-
fiict with the constitution OF the United
States. am rather inclined to doubt
the wisdom of it. 1t undoubtedly would
enable jurieS to agree more easily, but
it is very rare thing 10 have new
trial because of disagreement. and III
many cases the one or two men who
cause the disagreement are found to be
right in the new trial. / think it would
be rather dangerous experiment.
Byron Sutherland - 1t would be
neither wise nor constitutional. The
Seventh article of the constitution of
the United States reads: ''ln suits at
common law where the value in con-
troversy shall exceed $50 the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved" Now
trial by jury is held by all courts to be
jury of twelve men. The juries would
probably agree easier, and would
neither increase nor decrease the num-
Der of trials, but believe the present
system is as it should remain.
]. W. Lawrence-On first thought
this way l would be opposed to it. The
experience of all ages has gone to prove
to us that the trial of the criminal be-
fore jury composed of his peers is the
only right and proper way. With the
present system there can De no ire
vocable wrong; in the proposed one
there is liable to be. If nine men are
allowed to be sufficient, there would be
compromised verdict.
E. NJ. JohnsOn--Ten men would be
better than nine. l think it should take
ten to make the verdict. 1t was not the
rule in the Roman courts to have
unanimous verdict in all cases. They
varied as the importance of the case
varied. The same is true in Germany
to-day. | think that it would be wise
to introduce the same system into our
courts. 1t would surely facilitate agree
ment and lessen litigation.
E. K. airchild-Personally l am in
favor OF the change. 1T is n reform
that would not work any injury and
would be a success in practice, as it
would save disagreement. In any case
] think nine men would have just as
much weight as twelve. | think it
would be just as well to have the same
change in regard to criminal cases.
Andrew Holt do not see any harm
in trying the three-fourths verdict plan
for while, anyway. 1t would surely
facilitate agreement, and it would in
crease rather than decrease the workings
of Justice. Because thing is old is no
reason why we m lSt not try anything
else. | do not think it would have much
effect one way or the other on the num-
Der of new trials. We might try it, any
way, and if it don't work change back
again.
Judge A. Ueland-l am in favor of
the change. 1t will facilitate agree
ment and insure cases from having to
be tried over again, and would prevent
compromised verdicts. do not think
it would work injustice. The verdict
of nine good men is as good as that of
twelve.
Judge Ell FOrrance-I am opposed to
It. look at it about this way. The
present jury system has some defects,
to be sure, but taking it altogether it is
a system that is imbedded in the juris-
prudence of the country. If this step
is taken it will be but the first one to-
ward the aboliShment of the jury sys-
tenn. If l were judge in the court
would sooner grant new trial with the
verdict of nine men than of twelve, be-
cause there is greater liability Of in
justice. Such a change is bound to in
crease litigation. 1t is wrong to have a
case decided by the influence one law
yer has beyond another to gain the
votes of the jurymen i'll the verdict.
f. F. Davis-l don't believe in it.
Pm for twelve men as long as we have
the jury system. In fact, this is just a
step toward its abolishment. 1t might
aid in causing jurieS to agree, but there
is not one case of disagreement in a
hundred. l cannot see that it would
or the other.
+. III. Boapdman-I think there should
be change, but | would advise having
a jury of seven men with five capable of
rendering a verdict. In Canada, where
] came from, that was made the rule,
and it worked very successfully. 1t in
Sures agreement and is a matter of
economy. ! am in favor of such a
change. | think that three-quarters
verdict would be an Improvement.
AnSon B. JackSon-It is a difficult
thing to decide how it would work. 1t is
dangerous matter to make any change
in the jury system. There is no doubt
but good many agreements would be
arrived at more readily, but there would
be great question of their correctness.
1t is very likely there would be more
dissatisfaction, therefore more litiga-
ton. On the whole, would doubt the
wisdom of making any change.
John B. AtWater-I ain opposed to
any change if it would not be salts
factcry. Haven't got time to give my
reasons.
Judge Atwater--I am in favor of the
change. In Nevada, where practiced
for time, 1t worked very successfully:
also in California. 1t decreases the
number of new trials, and is a great aid
in practice. think that there may be
little question Of its constitutionality
Seagrave Smith-lt would be dan
gerous innovation. The present jury
system has existed a great many years,
with no serious evils. There are very
few cases of disagreement and, in nine
cases out of ten where there is disa-
greement, the minority are in the right.
1t would have no effect on litigation,
either to increase or decrease, and
would greatly increase the liability of
injustice. That is what L would say,
as the result OF thirty-six years eXpe-
rience.