Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1900-01-18

occupied by his honor, we observe
what appears to be total miscon-
ception Of the functions Of Judge,
and the unwarrantcd abuse of little
brief authority in incompetent
hands.
There arc strong arguments in
favor of Judge lIutlson's proposition
to allow nine members of q jury to
render verdict. One Of these is
that while it may not be impossible
to find one man on any jury who is
willing to make a mistrial, it is more
difficult to find two and still more
difficult to find three. But this is
not the present law. Each juror
arrives at an individual opinion, and
the agreement of twelve individual
opinions makes the verdict. 1t is
admissible for a juror, who is not
absolutely satisfied rs to the facts,
to yield his lack of conviction to the
conviction of the ma ority; but it is
not right for a minority juror to sur
render wcll-groundrd conscientious
convictions to the majority opinion
merely for the sake of arriving at a
verdict. The minute he would do
such thing he would pcrjurc him
self. Therefore, under the present
system, mistrials must necessarily
occur, and if they occur honestly
and this must be assumed in the
absence OF almost impossible proof
to the contrary-thcy are as legiti-
mate az a verdict. This is in accord
ancc with statute laws.
We shall not undertake to say
whether it y probable that those
four "not guilty" jurors were hold
Ing out because of n desire to protect
Professor Mcarcs, for notwithstand-
ing oaths or any earthly considcra-
uons, such things are not only posi-
BILE; but they are often done. And
here truly is the weakness of not
only the jury system; but of all
human justicc-thc weakness of
humanity. But what right-con
crete or abstract-has Judge Bu-
chanan to assume that these Jurors
arc perjurcrs? If he actually knew
them to be pcrjurcrs, then it would
have been his duty to have said SC
and told how and why he knew. In
deed he should have instructed the
solicitor to lay the matter before
the grand jury. Under the circum-
stances, although protected by his
Office from being held to account fol
his humiliating language, he had nc
legal or moral right to indulge in its
use.
We are not speaking here with
undue feeling; but are trying tc
look at the case in all Of its bearings
Then do not let us lose sight of the
fact that it was not at the minority
Jurors that the Judges remarks were
alone directed The whole iur,
was accused of lack of manhood
Those who wanted to convict anG
those who wanted to acquit were put
into the same category. According
to Judge Hnchanaii's peculiar ideas
if the minority was not willing tc
surrender to the majority than tn,
majority should have surrcndercdI c
the minority, for after all the issue
was not Justice, the character ant
reputation of plaintiff or defendant
but merely verdict. His state
mcnts leave no escape from this con
clusion.
And we are given u plain intima
ton that the idea of the verdict was
to save expense. We are told that
the cost of the trial was $50, and
the fact is cited to us that even il
the defendant had been convicted
he would have only been placed
under $500 bond. According tt
the Judge, then, after all, the princi
pal issue was one of dollars ant
ccnts--not that the county should
stand ready to bankrupt itself in order
to insure Justice to its citizens; bu
that jurors should only look TO th'
cheapest way out. In It's applicatio,
to our judiciary machinery the idc;
is certainly y new and novel but per
haps, after all, it is not altogcthc
inapplicablc to the especial case O
Judge Buchanan. From the rccor,
he has made as a presiding Judge OF
the bench and under the review O
the supreme court, hundreds Of law
ycrA all over the State having Ions
since come to the conclusion that hi
place could be better filled by som
one OF the best $500 magistrates, an,
in our opinion it would be capita
idea if the next General Asscmbl
would institute some kind OF
change. We do not suggest, o
course, the promotion of a $50