New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-04-08
INSULTING THANKS TO A JURY.

Americans are wont at times TO vaunt them
selves upon the excellence of their courts and
general system of administering justice. Es-
pecally when some such horror as the lola or
the Dreyfus trial occurs in some other country
they thank God that they are not as other men.
turning courtrooms into asyums for hysteria
and making hooking travesty of judicial pro-
cedure. In general there is doubt ground for
satisfaction with the dignity and impartiality
with which both civil and criminal trials are
conducted in the United States Nevertheless,
it is only too painfully evident in almost every
'sensatiOnal' case-as if any cause of justice
ought to be exploited into a sation'-that
there are malefc tendencies at work which, if
not checked, may bring our courts to even a
worse estate than those which form the subject
of our selfrighteous reprobation Some of
these abuses may be unntentional and IN
thinkingly committed. They may even be com
mltted with good intentions. But they none
the less mischevous There Is profound phi
losOphy in the observation that nothing is more
| mschievous than well meaning fool.
Take for example, the custom. which is
rapidly growing and is already quite common,
Of thanking the members of the jury for a YER
diet of acquittal in criminal case We mean
OF course. the personal thanking OF them by the
late prisoner at the bar uphemistically termed
record that the acquitted prisoner. Immediately
upon the announcement of the verdict has
rushed forward to the jury box shaken hands
with each member of the jury and more or
less effusively thanked them for the verdict
Now. we repeat, that may be- done with no
thought of wrong 70 some il may even seem
10 be a graceful proceeding Bur in fact ii Is
difficult 10 analyze il anything other than
a gross insult 10 the jury and a scandalOus re-
Election upon the honesty and impartaty OF
the Court. The acquitted prisoner may not
realize il. The specta tors may not. The jurors
may not. Bul il certainly seems As though the
Judge upon the bench should view it In It's true
light.
The Jurors have just acquitted the prisoner AT
The bar. Why: Not because Of the slightest
personal regard for him or her nor with the
slightest desire to do him or her a favor for
which il would be- fitting to thank them Not
even because they had the slightest sympathy
with the prisoner. nor even yet because they
were convinced OF his or her innocence No.
but simply and solely because they did not deem
the guilt of the prisoner completely proved by
the evidence. If the guilt had I'm their opinion
thus been proved, they would with equal readi-
ness have brought in a verdict of conviction
They have done the prisoner favor and have
not meant TO do one There il absolutely moth
ing in the situate which calls for thanks from
the acquitted person. And the infimatiop that
there Is something OF the sort-which IS in
evitaby made in the very act OF giving thanks
for one is not supposed to give thanks for moth
ing-s nothing short Of intimation that the
jurors were at least In the estimation of the
prisoner Influenced by personal corrupt or at
any rate partial motives.
Perhaps the Improperly Of the thing will be