New-York tribune., 1895-12-06
.TTUGE AND JURY.

The Jury In the Langcrman case have been
severely criticised on account of the verdict
which they found Much of the evidence was
intrinsically improbable, was fatty contra
dlrtcd by competent witnesses. and was abso-
lnely without cOrrob )ratiOn. II was commonly
Thought prior to the Recorders spectacular dis
cIos,rc that the urymen had manifested Il great
Lack OF discrimination; and that one of them
N least was deficient in firmness and nde-
pendcnco has since been proved by his acknowI-
cdgmcnt that he knew an important part OF the
testimony to be fraudulent and worthless. IT Is
altogether likely that If other members of the
iury were to speak for themselves they would
say that they abdicatcd their function as sole
iulges Of the facts. under the influence OF the
Recorders charge and through fear OF castlga-
tion from the bench in the event Of an acquttal
or Il disagreement. Since the trial OF this case
The Brooklyn Eagle" haG spoken plainly ana
with lust Indignation OF the treatment 10 which
prisoners and witnesses are too frequently sub
iccted by judges who exercise powers never be
slowed on them by law. Our contemporary
rightly says that the person who having been
so outraged. should accept the risk of paniSh-
ment and resent the wrong inflicted on Inn
would be Il public bcncfacor. The service wnich
4 Jury might render IN similar circumstances
would be- still more sautlry.
II is SURPRISING, that iuiics so often submit To
judicial tyranny. Their power within their
sphere is absolute, and they are under the most
solemn obligation to render Il verdict according
+, their honest estimate of the evidence before
them. They forswear themselves when they
permit the judge to usurp their function IN ih'
smallest degree and render decision conform
ing not to their own deliberate. CONSCIENTIOUS
convictions but 10 his expressed or implied opln-
ion If a jury. speaking through their foreman.
should say with appropriate emphasis I" Judge
who had viiiicd them that they were not IN
court 10 listen 10 his insOence. that their author
ity rs 10 the facts was us complete and imprcg-
nabc rs his authority us To the law, and that
thcv would not allow him without rcmon>trln
f., dcrrodc , court of Justice of which they were
a coordinate part. they would render an ines
Unable service An individual juror Speaking
for himself might properly do the same, and the
ndge who in such situation should dare to
attempt the infcton of penalty upon men so
defending their rights would find ample reason
10 regret his temerty. Honest vertics are some
times unintclligcnt and deporabe. but ii Is
far better that jure> should preserve their abso-
luc independence. NlEi'rN'I NV Consequences
than that they should be tcrrorzcd by the bench.
In this Iangerman case which develops new
and strange features every day, it is wellnlgh
certain that the prisoner would never have been
convicted except under the influence of the Re
cor,lcr'S charge. In other words. the Recorder
exercised power which was as foreign to his
official character as To that of the crier Of his
court The humiliation with which he now i.
or ought to he. overwhelmed. is due in about
equal proportions to that fact and 10 bis fan
t1str conduct since the verdict was rendered