St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-10-30
THE AMENDMENTS.

There is perhaps not one voter in ten
who knows it, and not one in ten who
mas recalled the fact three times since
The campaign opened, that there are
Two important constitutional amend
ments to be voted on next Tuesday.
And yet both of these amendments pro-
pose to effect serious changes in the
state constitution relating to the two
most important features in civil govern
ment, to wit, taxation and the jury sys-
tem. 1t is a lamentable fact that so
grave a matter as a constitutional
amendment receives less consideration
than the election of district constable
Or village coroner. This unfortunate
state of popular Indifference may be
partly attributed to the frequency with
which the constitution IS patched by
legislative tinkerers, and partly to the
fact that what is everybody's business
turns out i'll the end to be nobody's.
But, regardless of causes. it is alto
gether probable that the adoption or re-
lection of the two proposed amend
mentS will be by default rather than by
any intelligent opinion the voters may
have of them.
The first amendment proposes an
innovation oh the jury system by per-
hitting five-siXthS of a jury to render a
verdict. This will result in the over
throw of tradition sanctioned by the
centuries that unanimous verdict is
the sure bulwark of the citizen against
wrong and oppression. We are not Of
those who think anything is holy
simply because of its age, nor do we
think that any tradition should be re-
spected which does not fit the condition
of the age i'll which we live. But we do
believe in letting we'll enough alone
Experiments are always risky, and the
proposed jury amendment is an expert
ment. 1t is true that popular faith in
the jury system is not so strong as it
once was. The corrupt and the cor
rupting influences of this age have
reached the jury box, as well as other
departments of our civil and social life.
The streams of justice have been
polluted in so many instances. and
often so VIGOROUSLY, that the people
are doubtful Of the integrity and sound
ness of any piece of our governmental
machinery. Hence there is condition
of unrest and of suspicion and of wa
vering faith everywhere. Changes are
proposed and adopted in the hope that
something better may be realized, and
this is often done without taking into
account the risk incurred of making
things worse. We are frank to admit
that the abuses of the jury system are
responsible for the proposed constitu-
tlonal amendment. One bull-headed
fellow on jury. or. what is worse, one
who has been bribed, is capable of de-
feating the whole ends OF Justice by
hanging the jury. The proposed amend
ment lessons this evil, yet in doing that
it unsettles the foundation stone of the
jury system. 1t will be the entering
wedge TO destruction of an ancient
bulwark of popular freedom. If ten
men out of twelve are competeDt to
render verdict, there is no reason why
seven should not be Just as CONNIE
tent. If the unanimity of the Jury
is to be destroyed. we are of opin-
ion it would be better to reduce the
system to the simple majority plan.
And yet that is fraught with danger,
for after awhile some Tom REED would
come to the bench, and, by construct
I've quorum process, would convert
the minority into a majority. A
very little opening in levee
will sometimes result in the COM
plete destruction of the break
water; and thus a very little tinkerIng