The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1889-07-10
THE GOLDEN MEAN.
A Sensible View Of the Necessities Of
the Jury System.
(Frmm Tie GreenviNe Dailg NeNs.l

| the Jury System.
(From tie Greenvile Dnity Ners.)
We always sympathize with stron!
and earnest man who undertakes to !eaC
movement for change of old custom:
or the reform Of old abuses. The in
stinct of conservatism is so deeply
planted and widely spread; it meets anc
battles him everywhere; it forms a saft
and strong wall from which shallow
scoffers can shoot gibcs and stronger
foes can beat back and hinder the as
Sailant.
Judge Hudson has undertaken work
of that kind. Following the lead Of
men eminent in his profession, he Is
conducting, almost single-handcd so far,
a crusade against the unanimity rule fol
the verdict of juries Judge Hudson'S
position as a lawyer and q man demands
respectful consideration for his suggcs,
tions, and the high authorities he quotes
and the strong reasoning he presents
combine to support that demand. Like
the other Judges who have discussed
the subject, he passes over the lawyers
as parties biased and interested in the
maintenance of the present system aud
appeals directly to the people, from
whom the change, if change there is to
be, must come.
1t appears to us that IN this matter, as
in most others. there is a safe and
proper middle course which has much to
commend it-a compromise ground be-
tween the abolition of the unanimity rule
in all cases On one side and the retention
Of it in all cases on the other.
We think there is difference in the
principle of the jury system as applied
to criminal and civil cases. In the
criminal court the jury Is the country to
which the defendant appeals to stand
between himself and the prosecuting
government, and to pass upon his guilt
or innocence, to establish or destroy his
character, to take his life or liberty into
its keeping. In the civil court the
jurors act simply as arbitrators to de-
termine differences between parties and
to settle property rights.
In one case the jury has in kcening
the man himself, the highest and most
highly regarded of created things, whose
safety and happiness are the purpose
of all laws and forms of society. In the
other there is only a question of some
thing belonging or attaching to man.
The law itself recognizes the differ
ence of principle; for while to convict an
accused man the accuser must establish
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the
decision in a civil case is governed by a
mere preponderance of testimony.
There appears to be somewhat finer
distinction between different classes Of
criminal cases-between the graver ac-
cuSations involving life and liberty, and
the lesser ones for which the law i'm
poses a fine, with alternative imprison-
ment. The jury charged with the duty
of saying whether man shall be put to
death or deprived of his liberty for a
term of years, and of his civil rights for
ever, appears to US to be in position
differing from that Of the jury that has
to say whether or not man shall pay
SC G!iigy ae1l|2E5 70 the state for 1asln@
We think the great majority of those
who consider the subject carefully Will
conclude that the determination of civil
cases by q three-fourths or a two-thlrds,
or even majority, of the jury would
remove hindranceS from the progress of
courts and promote substantial justice.
When nine of twelve impartial men OF
average intelligence are of one mind in
a dispute involving property 1t ought to
be enough to determine the result.
1t may be the same rule for the trial
of petty criminal cases might be ap-
proved by the public. But we do not
believe any people of Anglo-SaXon
stock will ever approve any change OF
law which will hang man or lmprlson
him for long term unless the State eS-
tablishes his guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt in the minds of twelve men.
Here in South Carolina we will be the
last of all to favor any such change.
The people are not likely to forget that
in three instances their own citizens and
their State have been protected in the
Federal Courts by one juror holding out
against eleven. In any one OF those
cases verdictof guilty and the result
ing sentence would have been fearful
blow to our peace and security.
1t is argued that the unanimity rule Is
useless now; that 1t Is merely relic OF
the time when the jury stood between
the crown, controlling all the machinery
of the courts, and the accused subject.
But the jury now stands between the
accused and mightier and more tyran-
nical ruler than any potentate who ever
wore a crown. 1t stands between the
prisoner at the bar and public sentiment
and the people who make it-who not
only control the machinery Of the courts.
but who control and sway mems minds
and consciences. When the seven bishops
we're tried the King controlled the Judges,
but public sentiment ruled the jury, and
King and Judges were alike powerless.
But if it had been a republican govern
ment and public feeling had been as
King James's feeling was, there would
have been conviction instead of ac-
quittal. For the promotion Of substan-
tial Justice and the protection Of the
citizen the unanimity rule is more
necessary with our form of government
than with any other.
RaTTIFIN THE SOUDAN