The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-12-16

WHAT ARE JURORS FOR?


J The snohomish Weekly Tribune of the
18th inst. saws:
The jury in the case of the Francis and Har.
fier boys was out only about IN hour when II
returned with a verdict which exonerated TIE
boys and let them go free
This verdict was a gross miscarriage Of
justice, and is a good illustration of the
utter misconception by the average jury
man of the duty that deroIves upon him
IN obedience to his oath. The facts are as
follows: On August 3 the boys who have
been liberated deliberately placed switch
wrong for the purpose of witnessing rail-
road wreck. The wreck took place, and
by miracle did not result in terrible
loss of life. The passengers we're badly
shaken up, and a number severely bruised,
and of course the railroad suffered a con-
siderable loss OF property. Nothing but
remarkable good fortune saved the train
from an accident in which fifty lives might
have been lost.
The evidence was conclusive. The boy
Francis, who is L years of age, is a very
bad boy and led the other boy. Harrier,
who Is but 10 years old, into committing a
crime whose full possible consequences he
did not probably comprehend. Since the
wreck Francis has remarked, eyes; [ did
1t, and L will wreck the d-n train again.
too" This was told to the jury in the
words We have cited. The prosecution did
not expect to put this young ruffian
Francis in the penitentiary, but deemed
him proper subject for the reformatory
The jury, nevertheless, have released this
deprayed boy Francis, who is thus told
that a boy of II years of age may with i'm
punity misplace a switch for the purpose
of witnessing the spectacle of railroad
wreck, and all its implied possible and
probable terrible consequences.
This young rascal is IL years old: old
enough to know the nature OF his crime.
and yet his subsequent speech shows that
heis utterly unrepentant and vicious. If
ever there was youthful criminal that
deserved. for the protection of life and
property, to be confined in the reforma-
tory young Francis is that person. As an
object lesson to other ignorant or de-
PRAYED boys, the jury were bound by their
oaths to have found this reckless boy
guilty, so that he could have suffered some
penalty for his grave offense. But the
jury have given the young miscreant his
liberty, and il is quite certain this gift of
freedom will be soon employed in further
offenses against the safety of life and
property.
These outrageous verdicts are due either
a.
duty to the community, or to deliberate
violation of his oath and abuse OF hi.
Official position and opportunity. The
trouble with the average juror is that he
goes beyond his sworn duty in obedience
to his personal likes or dislikes and abuses
his function by treating his vote, not as a
sacred public trust, but as much his pri-
vate personal property as his horse. his
COW, his penknife or his chickens. The
average juror. it is said, is sure to find
verdict against railroad corporation. If
he happens to dislike the company; that is
I'm practice he holds that nobody has any
right to life, liberty or property in the
courts except the friends Of the Juror. or ut
least those for whom the juror has no posi-
tive dislike. Thus III effect the AVERAGE
Juror is creature of low, ignorant nro-
vinciai prejudices which he gratifes Mt the
expense of violating his oath or arbitrarily
assuming to himself n function that the
law says belongs 10 the Judge and not to
the juror
To illustrate: in an Eastern city a man
was tried in the United States court fnr
uttering counterfeit money; there was m
defense: the man when arrested had his
pockets full of the spurious coin: the tools
of his trade anu the coin III all stapez If
manufacture were discovered in his room,
Nevertheless the jury brought in verdict
of acquittal. Some days afterwards ,ba
United States district Judge on his wav -
court met one of the jury and asked hin,
"Had you any doubt of that mans guilt %,
"Oh. no." was the answer; "ws 81,
agreed he was guilty. but we thought vnp,a
give him too severe a sentence :,
we acquitted him" The Judge indignan.Iv
asked tho juryman If he did not know tba,
1t was his duty under his oath - detern,in.
Che guilt OF The accused on the evi5anes.
that the law left the decision Of the san
tsncc 70 the discretion OF the court. .b..
She jury grossly violated their oath in re-
fasing to find verdict in accordance with
taeir conviction Of guilt: shat ia~v had
M more business TO CONSIDER what e.,
sence the judges sense Of his duty pna,-
she law wonid lead him 10 Impose than a
Judge would have 10 absorb the functions
of the jury.