The times., 1899-05-24
TRIAL BY JURY.
A Strong Defence of One of Our Eng
Iish birth rights.

To the Editor of TIE Times:
In your issue of May II you present
fine argument upon a subject of much in
terest to the community, under the title.
The Rights OF Jurors" and as has al
ways been your practice, you appear as
the champion of the oppressed.
You say that in the Ely insanity case,
in Brooklyn, when the jury had been un-
able TO agree because one of the number
could not coincide with his associates. the
judge OF the Supreme Court, before whom
the issue was tried, is reported to have
severely lectured" the recalcitrant juror,
and you add that if jurymen are not en-
titled to their opinions-if they are 10 be
treated as SO many dummies and auto
nations TO register the opinions OF courts
as those courts think they should be regis
tered-why keep the jury system in exis-
tence; that 1t is travesty and burlesque
to call man from his business to sit in
a jury box for hours. and sometimes for
days and even weeks, and then to deny him
the right to record his honest opinion with
out being subjected to ridicule or con-
tumely from the bench.
The merits and abuses of the jury sys-
TEN, as now operated, have been fruit
full source sof discussion by men of deep
reasoning and powerful logic. and opin-
ions have been largely antagonistic.
presiding judge of one of the law and
equity courts of the United States, in an
address to the Bar Association Of his State,
in recent years, touched upon the require
ment of unanimity in our jury system.
CHASING it as an irrational requirement.
He claims that it invests one juror on
panel with the destructive veto power over
the concurring judgment OF his eleven
equals. a power not possessed by a men,
ber of any other civil tribunal known to
ancient or modern civilization-not pos
sessed by any judge upon the Supreme APP
pellate bench of the United States; that
a majority of both branches of the Legis-
lature is sufficient to enact laws affecting
the honor and destiny of State; that
majority judgment by the judges of the
Supreme Court of the United States is
sufficient in any case that can come before
them; that the Senate sitting as a high
court of Impeachment need not be unani-
nous in rendering its decree: that all de-
Lucrative, political, and corporate bodies.
social societies and ecclesiastical organ
lZatlons are conducted upon the theory
that verdict of the majority shall rule.
He argues that the requirement puts 1t
within the power of one corrupt juror to
defeat the ends of justice by his obstinacy,
subjects the balance of the panel 10 his
mercy, and enables him to force either a
mistrial or compromise verdict enables
an INSCRIPTIONS litigant to defeat justice
and defraud his adversary by corrupting a
single juror who may chance TO be not
above price, and dignifes ignorance and
corruption and puts them upon a level in
the jury box with intelligence and integ
rity.
You say in your article that ii is the
tendency of the judiciary, high and low, to
encroach upon the liberty of the citizen,
in its strict. narrow, nand technical. rather
than in its broad fand generous interpreta-
tion of the law, and the views referred to
certainly suggest the deprivation of the
rights OF the citizen conferred by the Mag
ma Charta. AS opposed to the reasoning of
this learned jurist, we have a fine argu-
ment from the pen Of another legal gentle
man whose effort received the support of
many intellectual men of standing and in
which the rights of citizens under the jury
system have been clearly portrayed Upon
the requirement of unanimity he says that
in Greece and Rome, in the Teutonic and
Scandinavian nations and probably among
the Normans, the agreement of majority
of jury, or of the body which represented
a jury was sufficient but from the earliest
times unanimity has been required in an
English traverse jury, and also in America.
The origin of the system is unknown. The
most plausible conjecture for which there
is authority is that originally there were,
or there might be, more than twelve iu-
rymen, but the agreement of that number
was required and when the number of the
jury finally settled down to twelve and no
more unanimity became requisite, and
during the reign of Edward III of England
it was decided that there could be no legal
verdict which was not the unanimous
opinion and finding of the whole jury. The
requirement of unanimity is Cne of the
most important elements of our jury sys-
TEN. and its origin has been already point
ed out When the question is raised as TO
the theory of unanimity in the jury system
being reasonable it must be admitted that
the rule is almost a wholly exceptional one
as regards judicial and other affairs.
In our courts OF common law. of equity.
and in our courts of appeal the opinion
of a majority Of the presiding judges is
all that is required to determine the is
sue, and in legislative and parliamentary
matters the rule of majority universally
prevails. But the rule as TO unanimity
in the jury system in relation to criminal
causes is supported by good reasoning. II
must be remembered that the life and lib
erty of an individual are sacred things,
and TO punish an innocent person is 10
do the gravest possible injury. not only
to the victim, but to Justice. Until a per-
son is adjudged guilty Of a crime, society
in general, and the community in which he
resides in particular, owe him a proper
respect, and they are bound to recognize
him as fellOw-citizen, no matter whether
he descends TO the lowest depths OF poverty
or abounds in riches, and when a man is
accused OF crime and is brought before
the bar of justice. the presumption of in
nocence follows him until the verdict haa
been rendered and it cannot be too often
reiterated that the object of our criminal
law is not only to procure the conviction Of
those charged with crimes, but it is to fur
nish tribunal where the innocent will
be cleared as surely as the guilty are con-
demned And, in view of the fact that
not only the liberty but the honor of the
accused is at stake. the agreement of
twelve jurors should still be required in
criminal cases, as II often happens that
one thoughtful, competent. and conscien-
tious man, by his failure to assent forces
a full and honest consideration OF the evil
dence, and thus becomes a safeguard
against insufficient calculation.
But in cases of a civil nature. where in
jury to person or property is the subject
matter OF dispute, il may be admitted that
a relaxation as TO the rule of unanimitv
may be made TO the advantage of the par
ties 4itigant, for lt often occurs that the
jurors, after remaining out a long time,
resort to compromise verdict, in order
that they may return to their homes and
families. 1t has been said that jurors in
civil cases. knowing that liberty and honor
are foreign to the case. will COMPROMISE
in the matter of damages, by placing the
amount of damages to which each deems
the plaintiff entitled opposite their re-
spective names, and awarding him the
amount secured by dividing the total OBJ