Fairhaven herald. [volume] (Fairhaven, Wash.) 1890-????, 1893-01-21
THE JURY SYSTEM

The Evening Post Of San Francisco
commends the movement in California
to so amend the constitution Of that
state as to permit three-fourths or five
sixths of a jury to find verdicts in
crimi' al cases, and says 'the only
OPPOSITION to such change will prob
ably come from shyster lawyers or ma
chine politicians, who often profit by
fixing one of the jurors" The reflec-
tons of the Post will hardly be deemed
just by that large class Of the Ameri-
can people who for some years have
been giving this most important sub
ject much serious thought. 1t is doubt
less true that instances of corruption of
the kind referred to have occurred, but
Notwithstanding this there is much
argument on both sides Of the question.
The jury system as 1t now exists in
most of the states of the Union, and in
most civilized countries. was an out
growth of the times and conditions I'M
der which it was instituted. 1t was q
great step in the direction of protecting
the lower orders Of the people against
the expressions Of despotism. The
sanctions Of time have been bestowed
upon 1t, and 1t has received the tolera-
ton, If not fully the approval, of ex-
perience. 1t is system well estab-
lished, thoroughly understood, and
producing results which are not expert
mental in their nature; and there are
very many who do not belong to the
class of "shyster lawyers" OF machine
politicians" who have given much
consideration and anxious thought to
the objections as well as to the advan-
tages Of the system, who hesitate to
enter upon the experiment of amend
ing or modifying system which has
come to be regarded as securing to the
citizen what he has come to regard as
his inherent right under the law.
On the other hand, juries sometimes
fail to agree, because Of the obstinacy
Of one man. Sometimes verdicts are
not satisfactory to the public, and are
always unsatisfactory to one of the
litigants, and from condemnation Of
one Of the particular jurors, the COM
plants are directed against the entire
jury system. 1t is thought that dis
agreements will occur less frequently
and verdicts be more just If less num-
Der than the whole may determine a
cause submitted to them. There is
much force In the argument. Almost
every person can call to mind some
particular case Of disagreement caused
by one juror whose action seemed 50
unreasonable as to create we'll founded
suspicion Of ignorance or corruption.
Again, 1t may be suggested that a
majority rule is more in consonance
with the spirit OF the institutions OF
this country; that II the majority rule
is the polite and just one in the matter
Of making the laws, 1t should also be
the rule In enforcing them. And that
at least the system could be safely and
advantageously modified as to all civil
cases, and in the trial Of mer
charged with minor offenses against
the law. Many Of those who earnestly
favor such modification stop at thai
point and declare that in capital case
the verdict should be unanimous, be
cause Of the magnitude Of the issues Il
be determined; not because the princi
pie is, or ought to be, different in sucl
cases, but because of the fear of com
hitting irreparable wrong, and as al
additional safeguard against such com
mission.
Whatever may be thought of tn
pdvisability, or practicability, Of al