Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1900-01-17

or property to the amount
of 500, and the principle that no man
can be deprived of life or liberty with
out trial by jury, is the mudsill of con-
stitutional law. When these facts are
appreciated, we are in a
position to examine the powers and
of the juror.
Examination of the jury laws shows
that there has been exercised the
greatest possible care to insure the
selection of only the most fit men for
jury duty. Under the South Carolina
statutes much is left to the discretion
of the jury commissioners; but these
officers are expected to select only
intelligent, honest, fair-minded men.
The fact that citizen is voter and a
taxpayer does not necessarily qualify
him as Juror. The law also contem-
plates that he must he man of intel
ligence and of established character
for uprightness of conduct and uncom'
promising integrity. The jury com
missioners have a right to demand
these qualifications of every man they
enter upon a panel, and when they
fail to give proper attention to these
requirements, they fail in the discharge
of duties to which they are bound 6y
oath. Even after all these precautions
have been taken, the law goes further
and permits an accused to peremptoriIy
reject certain number of jurors and
to eliminate all others who may, for
various reasons, be disqualified from
rendering a fair and impartial verdict.
After all these precautions have
been taken, the juror is to be consider
ed simply as judge-a judge of the
facts. Indeed, he stands on higher
plane than even the presiding judge.
The duties of the presiding judge are
prescribed by statute. He is allowed
but the smallest range of discretion,
circumscribed in part by the possible
reasonable difference of opinion that
may arise in the construction of a
written. law. With the juror, however,
it is altogether question of conscience
and discretion. He is bound only by
such testimony as he may believe, and
he has perfect legal and moral right
to reject all that he does not believe.
He is expected TO arrive at a conclu'
sion independently of his fellow ju-
rors, and whatever that conclusion
may be, he is bound by his solemn
oath to announce it as his verdict. And
over that verdict, in case there is an
agreement of the IL jurymen, the pre-
siding judge has no power except to
set it aside when, in his opinion, it is
not warranted by the law. The tire.
mendous responsibility assumed by a
Judge in setting aside verdict of gull
ty in a criminal case is obvious; but
in civil case, of course, the RESPONSE
bility is not so great.
The average juror seems to have an
idea that when within the courthouse
he is completely subject to the arbitra-
ry whims of the presiding judge. He
does not seem to realize that his own
duties and privileges are as clearly
defined by the statutes as are those OF
the judge, and that so long as he
keeps within the statutes, the judge
has no arbitrary authority over him.
Often, when listening to the examina-
ton of a witness he thinks Of some
particular question he would like to
have asked but it seldom occurs to
him that he, himself, has just as much
authority to ask that question as has
the lawyer on either side or the judge
on the bench. IF he will 60 back to
the inception of the jury system, he
will find that originally all of the ex-
aminations were conducted by members
of the jury, and the part now taken by
lawyers in this matter is compara-
lively recent development.
Not infrequently do we hear the
lightly expressed sentiment that the
jury system is a farce and should be
abolished. The profundity of such
ignorance is inconceivable. 1t is to
be taken only as an indication that be.
cause of our long enjoyment of civil
liberty we are ceasing to appreciate its
blessings. Perhaps, too, this accounts
in a measure for the too frequent laxi-
ty of jurors in doing their duty. But
do not let us think of abolishing the
system. Let US rather try to raise our
standard of the administration of jus.
tice. Let US inflict public contempt on
men who are unwilling to discharge
their jury duties with absolute justice
and impartiality. Let us look upon the
administration of justice between men
and society as the highest responsible
ty of citizenship, and, perhaps, after
awhile, we may make our jury system
as perfect in practice as it is now in
theory.
THE WlNkLER BILL.
Elsewhere in this issue is printed a