The prison mirror. [volume] (Stillwater, Minn.) 1887-1894, 1893-01-19
Give It A Trial.

The attention of the legislature is
called to the fact that there was adopt
ed. in 1889, and submitted to the people
of the state in the next year, the follow
ing amendment to the constitution:
And the legislature may provide that
the agreement of five-sixths of any jury
in any civil action or proceeding, after
not less than six hours deliberation,
shall be a sufficient verdict therein.
This action was not taken without due
thought and ample publicity. At the
time that it was before the legislature,
and afterward when it was submitted
to vote of the people, the merits of the
amendment and the objections to it
were canvasSed thoroughly. There is
no reason why those arguments should
be repeated here, because the people
have passed upon the main question at
issue and settled it. BY vote of three
to two of all those voting on the amend
ment, it was adopted. This was equiv
alent to a declaration by the people
that they approved the principle con-
tanned in it and desired to see it put on
trial. BY a desisive majority Of fifty
per cent. they announced their wish to
make the experiment.
For two years and more the amend
ment has stood Intellectual upon the
books, because there has been no action
to put it into effect. u that it does is
to give the legislature power to act in
the premises, and the legislature has
not acted. Interest in the matter died
away apparently with the adoption of
the amendment, and the legislature of
1891 ignored it. Now the reasons which
were COgent in favor of this change two
years ago are just as strong now. There
are just as many cases where justice is
defeated entirely, or where the cost and
delay of a new trial must be invited
because of the ignorance or prejudice of
a single member of jury, as there were
then. And the need of relief is as press
ing as it was when the legislature au-
thorized and the people approved this
change in the constitution. 1t is time
to give it a trial.
1t is. as any one reading it will see,
carefully wOrded and restricted. 1t does
not apply to all criminal actions. 1t
requires, in any case, six hours deliber
alton; that being sufficient time for
sitting the evidence and weighing the
merits of any ordinary case. And 1t
obligeS at least ten men out of twelve
to concur in finding that shall be valid.
We do not see why provision as well
regulated as this should work injury to
any one. AS a matter of fact, it would
be resOrted to only in petty cases, where
the patience of ten or eleven men had
been worn out by the resistance of one
or two. No jury would decide mo-
mentous case involving large property
issues on less then unanimous verdict;
and there is nothing in the amendment,
and need be nothing in the law passed
pursuant to it, to make such action
mandatory. 1t would be simply priv
ilege, permitted to put All end to
interminable diSagreements and mis-
trials in small cases, involving delay
and cost beyond all reasonable measure
of the merits of the question disputed.
The amendment was good doctrine
when it was adopted and it is good doc
trine now. 1t can be of no effect with
out further legislative action. This
legislature should permit the courts of
the state to avail themselves of the
change which the public has directly
manded.-PiOneer Press.