The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1890-06-18
CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY.
What Judge Hudson Had to Say abOnt
Unanimity III VerdictS.


pertains to the mode of dispensing justice
| in our Circuit Court is OF deep concern to
! our people, and should interest YOU and all
who otfciate in this Court, because We are
directly engaged in enforcing the laws OF
our State, and have the best opportunity of
observing the practical working of our sys-
tenn of laws and method OF deciding cases.
! The result of my experience and reelection
| is that no better method of deciding the
facts of causes, criminal or civil, has vet
been devised than that of trial by jury To
some extent opinion is divided on the sub
ject, and there are learned men who con-
tend that 4 large number of civil cases, at
least, could be more correctly adjudged by
the Court without jury. But the number
of those who are opposed to the system Of
trial by jury is not large, and never will D.
crease sufficiently to abolish this inestima-
bic right
It has been well said by an able Judge that
1.-The jury IS an indispensable part Of the
machinery Of justice. Liberty cannot exist
without trial by jury, and despotism cannot
long survive with it. The hard sense and
courageous frmneSs of English juries more
than once preserved the liberties of the En-
slish people against the King and his SER
vile Judges" And again: Trial by jury
popularizes the administration of justice by
making it part of the business Of the peo-
pie. The people ought to share in the ad-
ministration OF the laws which they are
popularity supposed to make. Itadds to the
dignity and responsibility of citizenship,
and instructS the citizen in his duties. It is
the most effective agency for the diffusion
of a general knowledge Of the law among
the people. It brings to the solution Of the
facts Of case common sense and practical
experience"
In this opinion heartily concur, and such
are the sentiments Of the great body OF our
people. So dear to our people and to al
EngEsh-speaking and liberty-loving people
is the right of trial by jnry, that there is no
dagger Of it being surrendered or seriously
impaired. Far be it from me to join in the
opposition to and hue and cry against this
great bulwark of our liberty. I yield to 10
one in my appreciation Of its priceless val
ue. What have to say to You is not against
the system and principle OF trial by jury,
but against defects in the rules for the gov
ernment of the jury. 1 have given to this
subject much thought, and am convinced
that serious defect does exist and should
be remedied. refer to the requirement Of
unanimity in veraictS. In its origin there
was reason for this rule, but that reason
never existed in the States Of this Union,
and has not existed IN Old England since
the revolution of 4. D. 1858. Prior to that
tiroe there was q reason for it, especially IN
criminal trials; but since then L see little
reason for it in criminal trials and none
whatever in civil cases.
Prior to the revolution of A. ID. 1858 an
independent Judiciary was unknown ;Judg-
es were appointed during the pleasure Of
the King, and were not intreauently remoy-
ed, as was Lord Coke, for Noncompliance
with the royal behests, or q too sturdy asSer-
ton Of their rights If this system did oc-
casionally produce eminent jurists like For
tescue and Markham, Gascoigne and Coke,
it will not be forgotten that under snch aus
piees men like Hyde and Scruggs and JEFF
freys iourished under the smiles Of the
Court, and fattened upon the miseries Of
their fellow subjects.
Not only were the Judges the creatures Of
the Crown, but SO were the sherlffS who
summoned i(such jurors rs they chose to
essfect and very naturally selected subServl-
ent men.
In addition to this the accused was not
allowed the services Of counsel, but alone
and unaided was compelled to defend him
self against the skill, zeal. ability, and un-
scrupulousness of the Kings counsel, who
was not restricted to the use of direct testi-
mony, but made free use of hearsay evil
dence and written afidavits Of absent per-
sons whom the unfortunate accused was not
permitted to confront nor to cross examine.
10 the accused, thus overwhelmed with dis
advantage, was not accorded the right to
testify in his own behalf, and should the
jury after all, zee TT TO find Il verdict Of ~;
qulttel against the opinion OF, and to the
displeasure of. the Kings Judge and the
Kings counsel, they were liable TO be fined
and imprisoned on the spot for such grave
misconduct.
| No wonder under such circumstances,
that the law required that the verdicts
| should be unanimous and that to the &C
cused was accorded by law the right of
twenty peremptory challenges, and to the
Crown the right of peremptory challenge
was denied.
The great revolution of 1888 effected q
most happy change in the appointment OF
Judges for life or good behaviour, thus Sc
curing the independence of tie Judiciary,
and many wholesome reforms in the entire
machinery of the Courts and mode OF con-
duct!ng trials.
These retormations, and I'll others which
| were affected in OLD England in the succeed
inc century, were embodied in our State
Constitution and statute laws after We
achieved our independence by the Reyolu-
ton of l776
Within the last quarter Of . century two
significant changes in our law have teen
made, having marked effect npon trial by
| Jury. 70 the accused has been accorded the
privilege OF testifying in his own behalf and
to the Judge has been denied the right to
comment upon the facts In other words the
accused has been made master of TIE sltua-
ton by being able to tell his own story and
having the Judge. challenged by the conSti-
tuition, set aside as it were, and has legitl-
mate province and influence destroyed. In
addition to all this vantage ground, the &C.
cuse6 could, up to three years ago, by his
large number of challenges, select his own
jury from the panel.
Within the last quarter Of q century the
effect of constitutional restriction and legis-
llntiye enactment has been to weaken our
Circuit Courts snd to facilitate the acquittal
Of persons charged Of murder. Not that
our Judges are less learned in the law, nor
that the jurors are less intelligent, bnt be-
cause the Judges are muzzled by the ConSti.
tuition, the Jurors are deprived OF their aid,
so essential to q correct guidance, and to the
accused is granted the privilege of manntac'
turing his own testimony, after having
adroitly chosen the time and place of slay-
ing his victim. In almost every grave Grim.
inal trial our juries have to weigh the testi.
mony Of theaccused, who have the strongest
possible inducement TO commit perjury; the
|juries are absolutely denied the aid Of an
enlightened Judge in unravelling this web
of falsehood and i'll dealing with the sophis'
try of astute counsel, by which they are lia.
bic to be led astrays
Under such system of trial it is not sur.