The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-03-02
GIVE 1T A TRIAL.

Dlugants and JurlStS are equally IN
terested in bill now pending in
congress, under the guidance of Repre-
sentative Bryan, of Nebraska. 1t pro-
poses to amend section 800 OF the re-
vised statutes by adding the words
In civil cases the verdict OF three
fourths Of the jurors constituting tho
jury shall stand as the verdict Of the
jury, and such verdict shall have the
same force and effect as unanimous
verdict" This amendment has refer
ence, Of course, exclusively to federal
courts, and aims to establish in these
courts the reform which is in success.
ful operation in five American states;
namely, California, Nevada, North Gnd
South Dakota and Texas. 1t will be
opposed by conservatives who hold out
obstinately for the institutions of the
common law. as beQueathed to us
through many generations of reyeren
tial Interpretation. and it will be cham
pioued, on the other hand, BY all those
who regard the law rs fit subject for
experiment and Improvement and not
as something intrinsically inaccessible
TO betterment or to alteration dictated
by varying customs aud new condi-
tious.
With respect to the need of somo
serious steps toward the increased
efficiency OF our present jury system,
we suspect it will be conceded that the
affirmative sentiment, generally speak
ing, is already in 4 majority. The in
creasins number OF jury disagrsements,
carrying with them multiplied costs,
but nothing definite in way Of justice,
would Of itself suffice to condemn the
old system as it is exemplitied in
current operation. But to this we
must add the belief Of a growing min
ority that the entire unanimity prin
ciple is wrong, with respect at least to
differences in equity; and that, par
ticularly in its virtual Endorsement of
ignorance as qualification for jury
service. the prevalent system signally
fails to keep abreast of this intelligent
and progressive age Tho union of
these dissatisfied sentiments in advo-
cacy of an innovation like that pro-
posed by Representa- We Bryan seems
more than probable, and the adoption
Of his experiment therefore, may be
set down as certainty, if not i'm
mediately, at least in a relatively brief
time,
From the very nature of their mis-
cellaneous duties, the common pleas
courts are those in which the defects Of
the unanimity requirement in civil &C
tions are most apparent. Apart,
though, from the fact that these courts
are beyond the juris fiction of congress,
it seemsin many essentials more desira.
bic to locate the experiment of a ma
jority requirement in federal court
than in state or county tribunal. For
one particular, the general tone of the
federal court is better calculated to
afford fair test There is, as a rule, a
lottier scope of litigation and a higher
quality Of counsel, pleading and adjudi-
cation than in the common pleas
forum, In civil actions before federal
courts the questions at issue are, in the
main, broader and deeper, thus giving
larger scope for honest difference in
jury deliberations. Ia view, then, of
these and other facts, not to speak of
tie example set by the United States
supreme court in rendering majority
decisions to which the dissent OF n
learned minority is no uncommon
thing it would seem to be no more
than courageous prudence on the part
Of congress to pass the Bryan bill and
have the advocated experiment fully
and fairly tried.