The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1891-09-29

yield to no n in my appreciation
of Its priceless value. What / have
to say to you is not against the sys-
tenn and principle of trial by jury
but against defects in the rules for
the government of the Jury. ]
have given 10 this subject much
thought, and i am convinced that
a serious defect does exist and
should be remedied. 1 refer to the
requirement of unanimity in YER
diets. Tn its origin there was a
reason for this rule, but that rea-
son never existed in the States of
this Union, and has not existed in
old England since the revolution
OF A. ID. 1858. Prior to that time
there was reason for it, especially
in criminal trials and none what.
ever in civil cases.
Prior to the revolution of 1858,
an independent judiciary was un-
known; judges were appointed du-
ring the pleasure of the king, and
were not infrequently removed, as
was Lord Coke, for noncompliance
with the royal behests, or a too
sturdy assertion of their rights.
If this system did occasionally pro-
duce eminent jurists like FOrtesuue
and Markham, Gascoigne and
Coke, it will not be forgotten that
under such auspices, men like
Hyde and Scruggs and Jeffreys
hourished under the smiles of the
court, and fattened upon the mis-
cries of their fellows, the subjects.
Not only were the judges the
| Rrn0fnrnS nf fhn nrnxt,, h,, ,> 49,.
the sheriffs, who summoned in
such jurors as they chose to Sc
Iect, and very naturally selected
Subservient men.
In addition to this, the accused
was not allowed the services of
counsel, but alone and unaided
was compelled to defend himself
against the skin and zeal, ability
and unscrupulousness of the kings
counsel, who was not restricted to
tho use of direct testimony, but
made free use Of hearsay evidence
and written amdavits of absent
persons whom the unfortunate &C
cused was not permitted to con-
front nor to cross examine. To the
accused, thus overwhelmed with
disadvantage, was not accorded
the right to testify in his own be-
half, and should the jury after all,
e fit to find Il verdict of acQuittal
against the opinion of, and to the
d~ispleasure 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 circum-
stances, that the law required that
the verdict should be unanimous,
and that to the accused was ac-
corded the right of twenty peremp-
tory challenges and to the crown
the right of peremptory challenge
was denied.
The great revolution of 1858 eff
fected a most happy change i'm the
appointment of judges for life or
good behavior, thus securing the
independence of the judiciary, and
many wholesome reforms in the
entire machinery Of the courts and
mode of conducting trials.
These rcformations, and all
others which We're effected in Old
England in the succeeding cen
tury, were embodied in our State
constitution and statute laws after
we achieved u independence by
the Revolution of 1776.
Within the last quarter of q CEN
fury, two significant changes in
our laws have been made, having
Il marked effect upon trial by Jury.
TO 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 the situation, by being able to
tell his w story, and having the
judge challenged by the constitu-
ton, set aside as it were, and his
legitimate province and influence
destroyed. In addition to all this
vantage ground, the accused could,
up to three or four years ago, by
his large number of challenges, Sc
lect his own jury from the panel.
Within the last quarter of a CEN
tury the effect of constitutional re-
striction and legislative enactment
has been to weaken our circuit
courts and to facilitate the acquit-
tai of persons charged of murder.
Not that our judges are less learned
in the law, nor that the Jurors are
less intelligent, but because the
judges T. 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 manufuc-
turing his own testimony, after
having adrOitly chosen the time
and place Of Staying his victim. In
almost every grave criminal trial
our jurics have to weigh the testi-
mony Of the accused, who have the
strongest possible inducement to
commit perjury; the Juries are alb.
SOlutely denied the aid Of an en-
lightened Judge In unraveling this
web Of falsehood and in dealing
with the sophistry of astute coun-
sci, by which they are liable to be
led astray.
Under such q system Of trial it is
not surprising that the best of iu-
ries render erroneous verdicts, and
that murderers go unwhipt of JUS
tice. This triumph is pleasing TO
the heinous offender and TO his as.
tute and jealous counsel, but ruin
u to the interests Of society, and
damaging to our courts of Justice.
The frequency of foul murder, and
the ease with which the bloody as
saSSin triumphS at the bar IF nur