New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-09-03
suaLL CIVIL JURiES BE ABOLISHED'

This years meeting of the American Bar
Association at Boston has been mainly slgnanzed
Inv n startling arraignment OF existing methods
If mdicial procedure, with especial reference
m civil iuries Alfred Russell, OF Detroit, IN
an elaborate criticism, went 50 far as to declare
that trial by Jury is the chief cause Of delay and
uncertainty in civil cases, its main advantage
being that it forces settlement out OF court, TO
avoid the oppression incident to Ignorant ana
ptch-penny determinations" a majority OF
tbe Committee on Remedial Procedure also
recommended the support Of legislation proWd-
ing for verdicts by three-fOurths OF Jury Id
civil cases, and Charles G. Lancaster, OF wash
ngton, declared that the business community
already demanded the abolition OF jurleS IN all
except criminal trials.
So far as it denotes a growing disposition
among lawyers to rebel against intOlerable legal
DELAYS, the Importance of the incident is not
10 be moderated. The moment general una
nirniy is reached in the profession in denouncing
obstacles to the speedy administration or JUS
tice. a sweeping reform will be inevitable, anu
a grateful public will unite in aoclalmlnS us
philanthropic authors. But if this reform de-
ponds on nothing less than the complete aban-
donment of the jury system in civil cases ltS
utility must at the best appear questionable.
There is no doubt that jurors actually employed
are too often confronted with problems above
their capacity to grasp in every detail. MIS-
carriages of Justice from this cause are undouDt-
edly more numerous than they need be, anu
opprS;el litigantS and their advocates are en-
titled to a generous need of sympathy. But
are iuries habitually so stupid in the conSldera-
ton of all issues involving high intelligence as
70 be worse than useless? And are they so
singular in this respect as to exonerate from
all blame the trained experts charged with their
illumination?
The public has long believed that the prime
responsibility for delay in legal adjustments
proceeds from the 1exterouS artitice OF lawyers
themselves, who are sometimes not above OBJ
securing simple facts with web OF technical
casuistry, impenetrable alike to arbiter and an
tagonist Not long ago. when the Supreme
Court of tho United States was three years be-
hind its docket, it was not denied that the
blockade of business was in great measure
assisted by the want of agreement at the bar
concerning modes of expedition. MIR. Russell
himself proclaimS against the DEFICIENCIES OF
civil judges, and is unsparing in criticism OF
contingent fee-talers and Of pettifoggerS in
general Judge Barrett not long ago limited
that so-called miscarnages of justice are not
infrequently triumphs of the law, and he scrupled
not to add that weakness of judicial rule is the
most frequent source of abortive litigation. II
this is true and the position is cOncuned in by
other eminent authorities then the brunt Of the
Bar Associations attack might properly be di-
rected against the bench rather than. against
the jury-box.
After all, there is one inevitable and con-
clusive reioinder to all structures on the conduct
of iures, in eithe. evil or criminal suits. 1t
the average of taleSmen was higher and eX-
emptions were vigorously Testricted-in word
if the instrument itself were properly and wisely
employed, the Ignorant and pitch-penny de-
examinations" complained Of would diminish as
rapidly as the number Of incompetent judicial
decisions woul1 be lessened by more adequate
remuneration Of judges. So long as men of
brains, with the c0nnivance Of advocates them
selves, are kept out of the jmy-boX, so long
will verdicts depend on hazard and caprice, and
the hardship will naturally be greatest where
the interest imposes the weightest intellectual
exaction. As to empowering nine Jurors out of
twelve TO return VerulcV, IhdU PiupoSluoh'
now often made, was long ago pro-
mulgated in this city by Judge Van
Brunt The qualification he provided, that
discretion as to such authority should reside
absolutely in the trial Judge, seems, however, to
be wanting in tho present case; and without
this, exhaustive discussion is uncaled-for by
any pressing consideration of need or expedi-
ency.