The sun., 1895-05-16
14r DUTY OF JURORS.
Governor Cornell Presents Some strihtnS
Views on the Subject.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUN-Sir: The
United States Constitution provides that inc
trial OF all crimes, except In cases OF inpeach-
ment, shall bo by jury. and such trial shaii DC
held in the State whore the said crimes shali nave
been committed" The New York state Consul
tuition also provides that "the trial by jury IN
all cases in which 1t has been heretofore used
shall remain involate forever: but Jury triei
may be waived by the parties in all civil cases
in the manner to be prescribed by law"
These sacred guarantees Of our highest organic
laws against the unjust tyranny of selfish ana
unscrupuous public officials over weak ana
ignorant unfortunntes. who have been anpre-
hendcd and charged with crime or msdeincah-
or should be faithfully maintained. The Guii'y
should be punished and the innocent protected'
but, above all. the trial by jury shouiu DO
Justly and honorably conducted. and this ancient
right of liberty and justice ought not to be rem
dcrcd n byword and reproach-a burlesque' even
i'm the eyes OF the people.
This community is Just now shocked by tho
brutal treatment o; many men called to scrvens
Jurors in n case of peculiar interest Were IL
only in this case that such an exhibition has oc-
Cured it might perhaps pass without serious
comment, but unfortunately 1t Is only sample
of what is of almost weekly recurrence. The
shameful treatment By public officials OF those
drawn for jury service has become gross and
degrading scandal. No wonder that decent.
self-respecting men eeok every possible excuse
to avoid jury duty. Besides the loss OF time'
they arc liable to be insulted and degraded or
at least placed under suspicion and their lves
and families rendered both uncom mfortable and
unhappy.
Every Juror takes a solemn oath to render
Just and honest verdict. Each juror has the
same right to his own opinion as every other and
all Of tho rest of his colleagues. II he cannot
with full and cheerful conscience. agree with
the Others it is his sacred and imperative duty
to refuse to agree No Judge has right to
ity. When he does SO he violates his duty and
should be held strictly responsible,
Only few years ago foul murder was COM
mittcd in this state, and the identity OF the
guilty murderer was clearly esta blishcd. Sc
rious question arose whether or not the terrible
deed was rremeditated, and was warmly con-
tested. The jury. after very prolonged delay:
decree. and the prisoner W was sentenced to be
hung. A motion for new trial was denied and
an appeal TO tho Governor for clcmency was re-
fused. and the prisoner was again sentenced 10
be hanged.
subsequently, another appeal for executive
for long time stood ten for conviction and Two
for acquittal; that after n tedious and ncrimo-
differences by an agreement to convict, with
mutual pledge that they would. after conviction
ton To- fe o apPTfhh PThe Governor was
therefore compelled TO grant communication and
leave red handed murderer under lie sem
tence and subject to the possibility of pardon
by n future Governor.
This incident forcibly illustrated the danger
and wrong Of n cowardly surrender of judgment
by individual jurors. SO long as we require a
unanimous verdict we must abide by the risk of
disagreement. Until the laws are changed 80 as
to provide for a majority verdict. magistrates
have no right to force and frighten jurors to sur
render their Independent Judgments.
In some of the most enlightened European
only n limited time. and II they fail to agree
within the time prescribed by law they must be
discharged. Has the day not already come when
our Legislature should consider some radical
revision Of our greatly abused jury system2
MAY ii, 1895. ALoNZo b. CORNELL.