The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-10-07
THE HINsHAw CASE.

Comment on the verdict in the Hin
shaw case takes every phase from un-
qualified approval to decided dissent. A
Sunday paper has a four-column editorial
to prove that Hinshaw lis a wholly in
nocent man." while a correspondent of
another city paper characterizes the jury
as "a set of freaks and fools,'' and the
verdict as a disgrace to the Jurisprudence
of the State.
No doubt juries in criminal cases some
times render wrong verdicts. but 1t is
much oftener in favor of the person
charged with crime than in favor Of the
State. The doctrine of reasonable doubt.
which in the hands of skillful lawyers is
often made to beget unreasonable doubts,
is the means of freeing many criminals
who ought to be punished. 1t is not
often that a jury errs in favor Of the
State or on the side of severity.
After all, human wisdom has not been
able to devise a better means of arriving
at facts and deciding the question of
guilt or innocence han trial by jury. 1t
has stood the test of hundreds of years
in A~nglo-Saxon countries. and Will doubt
less continue to be used as long as Anglo
Saxon governments exist. AS an evolu-
ton Of the wisdom of the best minds of
the race it is itself prima facie evidence
hat the verdict of a jury in a criminal
case is generally substantial Justice. The
intelligence, the moral sense. the wisdom,
the judgment, the conscience. the sense
of justice of twelve men are better than
those of any one man. and when twelve
men under oath agree upon a verdict it
is entitled to great moral weight.
The jury in the Hinshaw case was a
thoroughly representative and exception
ally good one. There is no class of men
in this or any other country better quail
fed to sit as jurors in a criminal case
than those who composed the jury in the
Hinshaw case. Representative men from
an exceptionally intelligent community,
they were possessed by nature and train
ing of every qualification. mental and
moral. necessary to the work of sitting
evidence by practical process. weighing
it in the scales Of justice and reaching
a true verdict. Even such a jury might
err, but the chances are against 1t. To
characterize them as freaks and fools"
is an insult to the best type Of American
citizenship. After the case had gone to
the jury Judge Hadley. an exceptionally
able and impartial judge. was asked what
he thought of the case. He replied:
/ have confidence in that jury. 1t Is COM
posed Of the best of Hendricks county. IL
a verdict of guilty Is returned / shall be-
1ieve that the evidence In this case, in the
minds OF conservative men. warrants II.
shall believe the jurors acted honestly and
in the light OF the evidence.
This should end all criticism of the
jury and all ~imputations on its intelli-
gence or honesty.
Bearing in mind that here were twelve
men of full average intelligence and ripe
Judgment. acting under a solemn oath.
il must be remembered further that they
heard a great deal more of the evidence
han any of their critics did. Newspaper
reports of the evidence in such a trial are
necessarily incomplete. They seldom pre-
tend TO give more than an intelligent
summary, with now and then a few ques-
tons and The great mass OF
testimony does not get into the papers,
but every word of II is absorbed by the
| jury n given it's full weight. More
over. they are aided in reaching a con-
clusion by many object lessons which
their critics do not have.
One Of the most senseless charges