The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1898-01-14

" and MS - Is not surprisin
ar snch o sHsfey Instances of the mi
=, carriage ofjustice occur. The Judge
al are not to blame. They ore by tb
N constitution shorn of their proper an
ar useful functions, and their inhuenc
J. reduced to naught. The jury is su
1t preme. There is no one to shar
l. with them the responsibility of tn
% verdict or to aid them in reaching
: conclusion, and should they, as j
Q often the case, reach an erroneou
Q conclusion in their verdict of acouit
tai, there is no power under the con
d stitution to correct it.
But after all, juries are not as often
, to be censured for acquittals as peo,
pie suppose. They are sworn to
render verdict according to the law
and the evidence. The accused can
} testify in his own behalf. His wife
IS likewise a competent witness. This
was not the case prior to 1866. The
man who will commit murder or any
grave crime will not hesitate to per.
Jure himself to save his life or his
liberty, if it be necessary. Often he
is the only eye witness to the fact.
Against his positive but false testi-
mony, makingit homicide in self
defence, the State can produce either
no evidence, or at best few circum-
stances. Now in such case, what
is the jury to do? Can they ignore
TINS positive testimony, false though
it may be, and declare under oath
that the man is guilty beyond rca-
sonable doubt? The average jury
Will Will not ID DO it, and theR erjored assas-
not p,ove it beyond seople believe
doubt. How natural o1ate SGge
Lynch should here step in and take
hand. He ignores i'm his court
sdecious argument of counsel, and
false protestations of the accused. and
visits swift punishment upon the raw
isher and assassin.
Our forefathers were wiser in their
generation than we. Security to per-
son and property was with them, as
it should be, the chief end of govern
ment. The law breaker was in their
opinion dangerous to society. They |
knew full we'll that he would readily |
perjure himself to escape punishment |
and hence they denied him the right
to testify in his own behalf, and the
opportunity of thus adding sin to in
iquity. They clcrely foresaw that
one charged with crime would lie,
thus defeating justice and thereby en-
couraging lawlessness. Having an
eye single to the peace of society,
they deemed it wiser to deny to man
the right to testify in his own behalf,
than to visit upon society the serious
consequences growing out of freqent
perjury. In trials, civil and Grim
inal, society is experiencing the fruits
of what is supposed to be more
humane and Christian policy; to wit:
that of rendering competent the testi-
mony of a party in his own behalf.
1t is' a disgrace to an enlightened
Christian people that their laws and
courts of justice cannot be relied on
to protect society from vile criminals,
and that the infuriated mob must un-
dertake to do this work. Yet when
we come to examine the record of
homicides in the United States, we
are painfully impressed with the
weakness of our courts of justice un-
der the present system of trial by
jury, and are shocked at the number
of executions by mob, they largely
t exceed the number of legal execu.
tions.
Beginning in January, 1891, and
G ending December 81, 1899, there
Q were in the United States G5,00C
i homicides. During 1891-1895 in
f elusive, there were only 1913 lega
n executions and 1,11S lynchings. This
y failure of our courts and rapid increas'
}. of lynch law would be moro startlin.
y ifthe statistics of 1896 and 1897 wer
d added, but these l have not at hand
d The whole number of homicides re
is ported during 1891-1895 inclusive
70 was 43,9O2-6gures below rathe
N than above true mark. In 1896, tn
,e number was 1862. Allowing 4
feet to n yehicle and 10 vehicles I