The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1891-08-27

ShOult DC lCiiilCt w o' FAS VhN i"'
to the facts with no other TIL ition
than slngle lecture from the bench.
Taking up two specific cases the
essavist says: "reu hundred and
sixteen jurors were called aud fifty
three days consumed before jury
was secured to try the Cronin case
in Chicago, and the trial lasted one
hundred and seven days, at an enor-
nous expense; while eight men are
under indictment for tampering with
that jury. The residents of New Or
leans waited month for the end Of
the trial of the Malta, and then took
fifteen minutes to accomplish what a
jury by bribery or intimidation fail
ed to do. Chicago cannot afford to
spend her time and money in trying
case under system which but
manufactures new criminals when at
tempting to convict the old. The
city of New Orleans should not be
compelled to appall the civilized
world by meeting crime with crime,
at a great cost of time and money"
After arraigning the rule of unanim-
ity of juries in vogue in his country,
Mr.. Thatcher proposes a substitute
for trial by jury as follows:
The answer is, a bench composed
of a reasonable number of judges,
three or five, who receive their office
Tor life, by appointment. First,
there should be more than one Judge,
that he may be aided by the counsel
of his associates, and so avoid the
least suspicion of favoritism or pre-
judice. Second, the court should
receive its position by appointment
and should not be composed of mem
bers of one political party, so that
the administration of justice may be
taken out of politics and its corrupt
ing influences.
To provide safeguard against
attempts to corrupt judges under
this plan, he proposes liberal laws
for inquiring iuto the acts of judges.
He replies to the objection that q
bench of judges would be too far
removed above the common affairs
of life to be able to decide questions
of fact, saying: LAS rule, our
judges have risen from the humblest
walks of life, and have come into
personal contact with the varied
affairs of men. Men when they be-
come judges do not necessarily lose
their common sense. Instead of
being less competent than an ever
changing jury, they are the better
qualified to Judge of facts, since
cases involving the same or similar
questions will occur, time and again,
giving them knowledge by exper-
| fence"
Mr.. Thatcher concludes: "By this
| plan you no longer place q premium
on ignorance, and you secure what
is the prime object OF every suit,
allowing everyone to assert his rights
speedily, with the least expense and
the highest degree of certainty"
1t is not for the purpose of agitat-
ing for the abolition of Hawaii's
jury system that this synopsis of the
paper in question is given, Abuses
of the nature described have not
reached the degree or extent in Ha-
waii which that writer deplores in
the States. 1t would be too expen-
sive for us, while perhaps not salts
factory otherwise, to adopt the plan
of substitute proposed. But while
holding by our jury system, the
openings for its improvement should
not be neglected. Both exemptions
and grounds of excuse should be
| curtailed. The rule that accepts
only admitted or assumed ignorance
and Indifference should be abolished.
Unnecessary waste of the time of
| iurors-a serious evil IN Honolulu,
caused by chronic unreadiness of
lawyers-shouId be strictly avoided.
Jury trials ought to be waived where
the issues are mainly those of law,
and in many cases might be substi-
| tuted by arbitration. The latter has
been largely introduced elsewhere,
greatly relieving stress of business
in the courts. Jury waving seems
to be growing increasingly in vogue
aere. There seems to be as import
ant cases heard originally before the
judges in chambers as at jury terms,
and large proportion of the weigh
tier cases are fought up TO the full
bench anyway.
The jury system must with all its