Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-04-02
JUDGE THAYER'S OPINION.
Remarks by the Eminent Jurist which are
Worthy the Notice of DeInwnreans

Remarks by the Eminent Jurist which are
Worthy the Notice of DeIawnreans.
The following extract is taken from
the address of Hon. NJ. Russell Thaysr.
which he delivered at n banquet given
to him by the Lawyers Club, in Phila-
delphia, recently. II is particularly
interesting to tho people Of this State.
in view of the fact that they will soon
be called upon to frame now Conati-
tuition, and this extract calls attention
to an important point in our jury sys-
ten. Judge Thayer said:
will not sit down without touch
ing briefly upon an additional subject of
sufficient Importance to merit some no.
tice-trial by jury. / have tried many
thousands of cases of all kinds, and have
learned by long experience to know
iuries and to understand their ways.
1t Is an institution which, In its general
features, is invaluable. There il a
deep meaning in calling the jury "The
Country" for their verdicts are, in
some sense, tho expression Of tho public
viii, chosen as they are, from the body
OF the people. Itis a popular tribunal,
which, after rendering it's decision,
melts away into tho general mass and
is seen no more Human ingenuity has
not been able TO invent any plan for
settling disputed questions OF fact
which is at all comparable with it,
viewing it in every light; nor may we,
in considering it, forget its great result
ing benefit to the community az an
educator of the people in the knowledge
OF the laws under which they live. Ny
experience, however. has led mo, after
much reflection and long observation,
to tho deliberate conclusion that the
rule which requires unanimity of agree
mcnt in the rendition of verdicts in
civil cases, has long outlived it's use
fulness, and has become at length a
positive obstruction TO the fair ad-
minIstration of Justice. 1t had its
origin far back in the dim twilight of
the Gothic, Danish and Saxon Consti-
tutlons. II grew, as wa know, out OF
tho institution of Compurgators and
the wager of law, principle as sense.
loss rs the wager of battle However
suitable to the circumstances of bar
barons times and semi -barbarous
people, the unanimity principle in civil
cases is no longer useful, but injurious
10 our laws.
How often have seen the best of
causes lost. after long and careful
trial, and the labor of many days result
in nothing, through tho Ignorance or
the knayery of some stupid or dishonest
Juror. Often, too, docs it happen, that
one or two corrupt or preiudiced jurors,
through the compulsive operation of
this rule, force their honest companions
into an unjust verdict by the duress of
long and protracted confinement. OF
cheat them into miserable, absurd,
aud unjust compromise as the price of
their liberty. When the Constitution
OF Pennsylvania shall be again revised,
as IT Is sure to BE- at no very distant
day, on account Of its present glaring
defects, let us hope that the unanimity
principle, in civil cases will paes from
our laws, and that the majority prin.
ciple, or, il not that, at least the two
thirds rule, will be substituted for it,
The seventh amendment of the Consti-
tuition OF the United States, relating to
trial by jury, can be no obstacle to
this great reform, as that amendment
has been solemnly determined by the
supreme Court of the United States to
apply only to the Courts Of the United
States. Pearson vs. Yewdell, o5 u. s..
Rep. 29i. In criminal cases the principle
OF unanimity should be preserved as
safeguard of liberty and reasonable
protection of accused persons. In all
civil suits the sooner 1t is gotten rid of
the better it will be for the certain,
pure, impartial and satisfactory adj
ministration of Justice These views
are by no means new. nor am / their
solitary exponent. They have been
beld by very distinguished men, who
have given the subject groat considera-
tion, as, for example, by Locke, Lord
Clarendon, Hallam, Lord Compbell,
Francis Lieber and man others. -