The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-05-29

by his peers-his fellows and Of the
suitor to have the fact of his property
right determined by the same tribunal
In the first instance on a disputed fact,
the appeal Is to the twelve men in the
box. AZ concerns power there Is not
nor car there be- a higher office than
Juror in this nation. There is not a des-
rot OH earth exercising power over the
subject, who is so wholly irresponsible
as the Juror The worst of despots is
in some degree sensitive to public opin
ion Is always subject to the hatred Of
and sometimes assassination by the
outraged subject; and IL he perpetrate
WRONGS intolerable, revolution over
throws him. But the juryman, for a
few days, suspends his ordinary vo-
cation; occupies the exalted place of a
tiier of fact; decides that one of his
fellows ought to die on the gallows,
another undergo a long imprisonment
as a felon, or another receive thous-
ands of dollars of property in posses
sion of his antagonist; after thus pass
O., ing on the life, liberty and property
of others, he falls back into the mass
and is never heard of again in connec-
tion with the all-important events in
which he was the principal actor L
repeat, in all this broad land of free
institutions, which it's numerous Off
ces from president to messenger boy,
there is no such irresponsible power
lodged anywhere as with the juror.
And in O government of the people,
by the people and for the people, such
terrible power ought to be lodged just
there and nowhere else. In my opinion
1t has been the chief source of strength
to our judicial system The people feel
that there remains with them the most
important function in the administra-
tion OF justice, ascertainment of the
truth from conflicting evidence; shield
ing the humble from the assaults of
the malicious and powerful.
CHANGE IN PUBLIC OPINION.
"In our own commonwealth, for a
full half century after the Revolution,
any suggestion of abridgment of right
of trial by jury was met in the legisla-
ture by most emphatic refusal Near
ly all the chancery powers the courts
now possess were most grudgingly con-
ferred in the last fifty years. At about
that time, fifty years ago, the careful
student of our judicial history will no
tice change in both legal and to some
extent public opinion commenced.
Whether q jury trial war the surest
heretofore it had been adopted was
questioned. Under the old equity rules
lawyers of the highest standing began
TO certify at the foot of a bill in equity
that the client had no adequate rem
edy at law, and both in the common
pleas and supreme court, as is shown
by the reported cases, equity was ex-
tended to include cases over which,
before that time, it had no jurisdiction.
I'm the Constitutional convention
of 1897 no attempts at radical change
in jury trial were made; but in that Of
1873 an able minority made many un-
successful assaults upon it. Some
changes were made affecting the right
but it was substantially unaltered, and
the old declaration, Trial by jury
shall be as heretofore, and the right
thereof remain involiate,' was adopted.
The legislature, however, by the acts of
1896 and 1881, under the guise of re-
gulation of the right, made serious
changes. The courts, as early as 1854,
i, held, the right existed only as to Of
81 fenses indictable at the adoption of our
first Constitution in 1776, and could not
be, invoked as to statutory offenses;
% and again, that it did not exist in COM
RI mon law courts where the proceedings
1 law. u8l.e
- COURTS AND JURIES AT ODDS.
bila There appears further in the trial
of causes involving rights of property
ona decided antagonism between the
Nttriai courts and the juries. The charge
of the Judge, his comments on the evil
! dence, frequently indicate different
E verdict than that rendered; evidently,
the verdict does not accord with his
afview of the evidence; he seems to sus-
apectS that his point of view is a different
afone from that which will be taken by
3 the jury, and he seeks at the outset
a OF their deliberations to induce them
Ito change their ground. The court fire.
quently after verdict offers to the sue
cessful party the alternative of re-
duced verdict or a new trial. CaustlC
comments of the public press on what
are termed absurdly unjust verdcts ,ur
known twenty-five years ago, all are
facts which must strike anyone as
significant in view of the sol,
emn declarations Of great law.
yers and statesmen half a century
since. l remember well, forty years
ago, hearing ThaddeuS Stevens de-
clare, after a jury had been sent out
in a most important case in which he
even the Omnipresent Himself coulC
not foretell, and that was the verdict
of a jury on conflicting evidence. In
whatever sense he may have meant
this to be taken, have always thought
1t was the highest possible tribute Il
, the integrity and capacity Of the Jury
After hearing all the evidence, seeing
,tho witnesses, hearing the arguments
sa OF able counsel and an impartial sum
ming up by the trial judge. what decis
ion as to the truth will twelve intelli
gent, honest men, after impartial delib
GRAFTON, come to? Who knows bettel
what that decision ought TO be thar
they? Who can possibly have a better
opportunity for arriving at the very
Il nth thar they? Feed counsel on eth,
er side cannot impartially deliberate
the trial judge. although a trained
reasoner, may be child in knowledge
of the cJhimon affairs of life which en-.
ter into the question at issue, and in
which some of the jury, at least, are
experts; the unSworn casual specta.
toss at the trial are never in posses,
sion OF the whole case in all its bear.
ings as are the jury. II is no imputa.
tion on the integrity or intelligence Oi
q Jury that their verdict in a contested
case OH facts cannot be known un.
I'll rAndered. The assaults of late
years on the institution today are II
large degree prompted by the fact, no
that their verdict cannot be known
but that II can be foretold before II Il
rendered. Given the parties and thei
financhaa condition, without regard L
the weight or signi0pance Of the evi