New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-22
.TTPY DUTY AND BAD CITIZENSHIP.

Long experience Of the operation OF the jury
svs,em in this city. eliminating in recent ex-
annie of It's worst faults. has seemingly pro-
duccd a pretty general opinion that ii needs 10
be reformed Eminent members Of the bar have
frankly acknowledged the importance of the
question which vas suddenly brought into I'M
usual prominence by the Mclaughlin case ana
some Of our Judges are said to be considering
measures which may be submitted To the next
Legislature. Fortunately. The prevailing desire
for Il rcc,ilcation of present abuses by changes
In tie aw has not led Mayor Strong 10 approve
a bill passed n the session just ended under the
impression that 1t would accomplish salulary
results. That measure. introduced by Assembly
man Niles provided that the Commissioner OF
Jurors in making up his list should FIRST enron
thc names Of citizens who did not vote ~ the
last preceding election. ana that CITIZENS WI"
did vote should Mt be liable To jury service un'i
the list Of non.yotcrs had been exhausted We
have no reason 10 doubt that the intention Of the
person who drew this bill and of those who sup
ported II. SO far ~ they can be said To nave hah
any intelligent purpose In the matter. was praise
worthy It's object seems 10 have been primarily
10 diminish the number Of qualified electors VINO
do not vote. by enforcing "A penalty Tor fallure
10 perform one OF the mos, important duties or
citizenship. Jury service II generally considered
irksomc and avoided as often rs possible. lhcr'
fore II was assumed. citizens who Otherwise
would shun the polls would vote In ordcr 10
escape a special risk Of subsection to that hard
ship Other penalties for nonvotcrs have been
suggested In the past. but this we think Is the
most objectionable proposition on The subject
which has had hearing in our time II we were
inclined 10 cynicsm we might add that this ac-
counts for it's adoption by the last Legislature.
II Is not impossible that some advocates 81 the
Niles bill also thought that 1t would operate in
such a manner as 10 bring particularly desir-
able quality Of jurors into the service OF the peo
ple II so their theory must have been that citi-
zens who voluntarily decline 10 vote are persons
of srDerior intelligence and rccltudcan by
notbcsis which Is as crroncou, as their whole
scheme Is Illogical Habtual non-votcrs rs a
rule have a very high opinion Of themselves, but
It is not and ought not to be shared by more
faithful members Of society. They are usually
the harshest critics Of the government under
which they live though morally they are cStoppcd
from condcmning evils which they do nothing To
rcctify. 1t is conceded that statutory cxcmp-
tons personal excuses and legal procedure
greatly diminish tlc 'Hiii''H vi -''''hH " '''"'
pctcnt jury to irv sensational criminal cases IN
\cw-York but sensible persons do not want TO
see the system modified. even by way Of expert
mept. in the manner provided by the Niles bill.
4 jury composed exclusively or In large part OF
persons whose presence in the box would be Il
public certificate that they were unworthy OF
citizenship would be a novel but not cheerful
object OF contemplation.
There Is no reason 10 suppose that Governor
Morton would have signed the Niles bill, If lis
fate had depended upon his signature. But we
are glad that Mayor Strong has estimated its
character justly and nierposcd the municipal
veto Next winter we nope to see rational and
consistent plan Of jury reform presented TO the
Legislature. with such convincing proofs OF its
approval by competent authorities as shall Sc
cure its prompt adoption.