Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1893-01-26

A1@%A@ ~ VIC 4A1N An S1C nAAUAct
pointed out by the statute, excep-
ton at the proper time and in the
proper way, may be successfully
taken to jury improperly chosen
and drawn; otherwise the statutory
provisions wouId be wholly nuga-
tory"
Now, the Statute unequivocally
presc-ibes that the two hundred
names which are to be placed in
the box, aud from which the names
Of the forty-eight persons who are
to form the grand and petit iuries
are to be drawn shall, in the presence
of such members of the bar, as
think fit 10 attend, be selected by the
Judge from the tav list and the poll
books. The person who shall make
the selection Is the judge aud no
one else; the selection is TO be made
publ ely in the presence Of the menu
beers IF the bar if they attend after
notice and. the poll-books aud tar
list are the exclusive sources from
which the judge can procure the
names to be placed in the jury box.
/ The selection must be made by him
with special reference to the intel
ligence, sObriety aud integrity Of
the persons chosen. After, his has
been done he must sign a certificate
that the ''list has been duly select
ed in conformity with and accord
ing to the spirit and intent OF the
law"
Prior to the act Of 1867 oh. 329
jurors were selected by the sheriffs
of the counties, but that method
was so open 10 abuse and in some
sections of the State was so notori-
ously prevented for political and
partisan purposes that the General
Assembly by the act of 1867 radi-
cally changed the whole system.
The judge was substituted for the
sheriff to make the selections. The
statute, if the occasion which
prompted its passage be considered,
never contemplated that, in the
discharge of this important and
delicate duty, the Judge was to
accept the selections made by others.
Ii was the obvious design of the law
to provide the most minute safe
guards for toe selection of intelli-
gent, disintercsted and upright
jurors, but its salutary policy might
be utterly frustrated if the Judge,
instead of himself making the selec-
tions, should merely adopt the lists
privately fun nished to him by per.
SONS, who. without his knowledge
may be interested in securing the
attendance of particular individuals
to serve upon the jury.
The names thus furnished him
may be names upon the poll-books
or the tax-lists, but they are not
names selected by him therefrom.
If he places IN the jury-box the
names thus given him he accepts
the selections of some one else. A
judge may very properly and from
the nature of the case must often
inform himself by inquiry as to
the intelligence, sobriety and in
tegrity of the persons whose names
he may select; but such inquiries
are quite different from adopting
selections actually made by some
one else. The Statute requires that
on the day appointed the judg,
shall proceed to select" from the
tax-list aud the poll "a panel
Of two hundred names" hot that
he shall on that day proceed to read
over panel of two hundred names
previously selected in some other
way and from some other source aud
by some other persons.
A list of two hundred names
made up in the manner testified to
by Judge Hoffman and made NJ.
ia anticipation of the time desig
mated by him for their public seltc-
lion is not list duly selected ia
conformity with aud according 10
the spirit aud intent Of the law
aud this mode of proceeding is far
from being a substantial cOmpilauc,
with the statute, but is, OH the con
trary, wide departure from its re-
quirements. 1t is true that Judge
Hoffman announced that he was
about to draw not to select the jury
and that If there were any objec-
tions to any of the names upon the
list he had prepared he would be-
glad to hear them; but this state
ment only emphasized the fact that
the list had been made up before
the time when the Code prescribed
it should be made up.
Confessrdlv the names were not
taken either from tax list or the
poll buoks. for these were referred
to- but twice, OIice to rectify TIA.
spelling of name and once tn as
certain persons age. That the
names actually selected happened
To DE upon the prll-books or the
tax list. was an accident /; they were
not taken from either and if they
were not taken from either at the
time and in the manner designated
by the law, the plain letter as we'll
rs the manifest spirit of the statute
was clearly disregarded. If the
practice pursued in this case were
tolerated it Is difficult to f0retell
its widespread aud disastrous con-
sequences. Designing or interested
parties, or others at their instance,