The daily morning journal and courier., 1896-09-07
------- --- WOMEN ON JURIES.
How the Experiment Failed in Wash
 ington.

SeAANNt
 ington.
 The talk in the Chicago papers of late about the drawing of two women for service on a jury reminds me that I saw the experiment of women jurors tried pretty thoroughly several years ago in what was then the territory of Washington. The legislature of that territory passed full female suffrage act, and at two or three elections all of the women in the state over twenty one years of age had the privilege of voting.
 There was judge in Washington named Greene at that time. He insist ed that So long as the women enjoyed the suffrage they ought to bear the burdens of citizenship just the same as men. He made an order to the sheriff in his judicial district that they should put women on all the jury panels, and he declared that he would accept no jury in his court unless there were wo- men upon it. There was great deal deal of rebellion talk among the wo- men, but number of prominent suf- fragists came forward and announced their willingness to do jury duty. No discrimination was made, however, in favor of the women who didn't want to be jurors, and small social convulsion followed the arbitrary order of Judge Greene.
 I was out in Washington a considera- ble part of every year, and I talked a good deal with the lawyers as to how the women jurors were performing their duties. All agreed that they were conscientious, that they listened care fully to the evidence, and that they gave closer attention to the arguments of the lawyers than the average man juror did. They did not yawn or shut their eyes or look up at the flies on the ceiling of the courtroom when the lawyers were talking.
 But the lawyers were unanimous in their opinion that they didn't want wo- men on the ury. They said that the trouble was the lack of the logical fac ulty in the female mind. The women didn't seem to be able to weigh con- f1icting evidence or to follow closely a line of dry argument, or to give the proper weight to the statutes explained to them. They were very apt to make up their minds in the progress of the trial from some little circumstances or bits of evidence that might be almost immaterial to the real point at issue When they had once come to the con- clusion that the plaintiff or defendant was right, all subsequent evidence or pleading ran off their brains like water from a ducks back. A man might have very strong case, but if the wo- men heard that he had not behaved himself we'll toward his family they were sure to favor a verdict against him. no matter what the evidence might be. Their tendency was to take everything in a personal way. If Mrs. A. sat on jury and her particular friend. Mrs. B.'s husband. was a party to the lawsuit, Mrs. A. was pretty sure that MT. B. was right because Mrs. B. was S friend of hers.
 Tie physical inconvenience of hav- ing women on the juries were great. It was necessary to provide some sort of retiring-rooms for them in the court houses, and female bailiffs had to be appointed. When the jury was locked up to force verdict the men whose wives were thus incarcerated with a miscellaneous lot of masculine Jurors were naturally furious. I do not think there was any case while the ex- pertinent lasted when the jury was held over night. Out of courtesy to the women members the men came to an agreement sooner than is usually the case, and didn't resort to the general and venerable custom of tiring out the minority by all-night sessions with ci- gars and pipes.
 Finally the whole business came to an end by decision of the Territorial Supreme court knocking out the wo- man suffrage law on the trifling tech nicaI point that it's purport was not fully expressed in its title.-Chicago Times-H Herald.