The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-04-16

any Witness sworn In q case OF
such matters the jury il the sole and
exclusive Judge and "a the Jury 10
composed Of twelve men. each and an
must concur In the conclusion II
Is true that where there are many
men II frequently happens that there
are a. many minds. and the require
meat OF u1zniEfty In 4 verdicf-she
uDanlmiry OF twelve unbiased unprey-
udiced. uncontrolled and fearless men.
Is one Of the greatest safeguards
which the Law has cast about the lib
erty OF the CITIZEN Justice Miller. in
delivering an address some ten years
ago before the graduating class of
the Law Department of the University
of Pennsylvania, said that the JUS
tees Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States rarely ever differed as
to the Law Of case. but that they
found the greatest dificuisy in aoree-
ing upon the facta. Il is not to be
wondered. then. that Jurors sometimes
disagree with each other and that
upon rare occasions the Jury viii rem
der verdiets which may not meet with
the approval of others. or Of many
others. Our ancestors, admonished by
the lessons taught by English history.
saw plainly that the right Of trial by
jury was absolutely essential u pre-
serve the rights and liberties Of the
people. ana it was the knowledge of
this fact that caused them to insert
in the Constitution peremptory and
Ia he
and his servile and dependent Judges
would have subyerted the rights ard
liberties of the people, but for the
good sense and patriotism OF jurors
II is to the verdicts of juries and not
the opinion of judges that the Eng
lish people are chiefly indebted for
their liberties. A brief reference 10
one or two of the many cases will
serve to illustrate this truth and show
why trial by jury is the only sure
and safe refuge the citizen has for
his right sand --Derties
William Penn and William Mead
were Quaker preachers. Their re-
ligious faith was offensive to the
King, and to his judges and the gov.
erning class. The Quaker meeting
house having been closed against
them, the congregation assembled. In
that quiet and orderly manner char
acteristic of Quakers, in an open place
near the meeting house, where Penn
was preaching TO them. when they
were set upon by the police and vio-
lently dispersed. For this Penn and
Mead. and not the police who created
the disturbance, were indicted. The
indictment bristled with charges of
conspiracy. unlawful assembly, etc
Penn being denied counsel was COM
PEELED to defend himself Despite the
peremptory charge of .ne Court to
find Penn guilty of the alleged con
spiracy' and unlawful assembly" the
jury returned a verdict guilty of
preaching only" At this the Court
fell into passion, browbeat the jury.
particularly their foreman. Bushel,
and instructed them to return a gen.
eral verdict Of guilty. This the jury
refused to do, and, after being sent
out four times. they returned a gen.
eral verdict of not guilty, whereupon
they were fined for contempt of Court
in rendering the verdict contrary to
its instructions and it's Interpretation
of the law. But the jurors asserted
their rights to render a verdict in &C
cordance with the dictates of their
own consciences, and the Court to
which they appealed held that they
had that right. and could not be pun
ished for exercising it, and reversed
the fine.
The Penn case and the proceedings
which grew out of it, constitute one
of the foundation stones of the Eng
lish bill of rights.
A bookseller whose publications
contained criticisms on the admins
tration of public affairs, was indicted
for publishing seditious libel. He
was tried before the Chief Justice.
I'm vain" says an authentic history.
did Lord Peterborough, uniting all
of the authorities of the Judge with
the arts of the counsel, strive for a
conviction Addressing the jury he
said. under the authority of the libel
act, and still more in obedience to
his conscience and his God, he pro-
nounced this to be most infamous
and profane libel" But the jury were
proof against this authority and his
persuasion" May Const. Hist. Eng.
They returned a verdict of not gull
ty. thus indicating the freedom of the
press and the right to criticise the
of public affairs.
Seven bishops presented a respect
full petition to the King, praying for
the enforcement of the laws of the
kingdom. and for redress of griev-
ances For this they were indicted
for libel. It is worth while to note the
charge of the judges to the jury. The
Chief Justice said: And I must In
short give you my opinion: I do take
Il TO be a libel" And Justice ALL
bons said to the jury: Then I lay
this down for my next position: that |
40 private man take upon him to write |
the government at all; for |
what has any private man to do with |
he government, IL his interest be not |
stirred or shaken?" After receiving |
his charge. the jury. says Lord Camp
,ell. were marched OF in the custody |
Il bailiff who was sworn not to let |
hem have meat or drink. fire or can
lie until they were agreed upon their
'erdict. All night they were shut up;
dr. Arnold. the Kings brewer. stand
ng out for . conviction until six next |
morning. then. though dreadfully ex-
he was thus addressed by a
'rother juryman: Look at me. I am