The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-09

Skhl C0uIb qua m4kt baAS tutc OA1y tO affect the common people of Alabama. Are you prepared to do itf
 1. MT. Blackwell--Does the gentleman tell the Convention that when the amount involved is less than Sz. LOO that you can transfer that casey
 MT. Lomax-Certainly not; but who ever heard of a damage suit for less than $2.000 where there was an injury as much as the loss of a finger. I would like to be pointed to one on the records of the courts of Alabama. So say by the adoption of this pro- posed amendment you absolutely en- trench these corporations in the Fed eral Court and you don't accomplish the purpose you desire.
 Now. they say this provision has cobwebs on it. 1 have heard that the best wine has cobweps on its bottles. It is said that this provision had its origin In the days when the doctrine prevailed that kings held by divine right. It did and upon the field of Runnymede from the throat of king who claimed by divine right the people of England wrung this concession and 1t stands to this day untouched in Eng fish law. It was not only in Magma Charta but 1t was in the declaration of | rights at the restitution of Charles II. It was put In the act of settlement when William and Mary came to the throne. It was imbedded in the Amer ican Constitution and there 1t ought to stand until time shall be no more. But we are told that some of the great States have adopted this reform. What States do they cite us to? The States of Colorado. Florida. Idaho
 Iowa. Louisiana. Missouri, Michigan, Montana. Nebraska, New Jersey, North WQGhinOfnr WVnn1tnO MT. Weatherly-Willt the gentleman allow me to ask if North Dakota is the State where you can get a divorce in twenty-four hours?
 MT. Lomax-Yes, and Wyoming is a woman suffrage State and Colorado is | another and all of the States. with the exception of three, have not got the swaddling clothes of statehood off yet MT. White-How about California and Connecticut and Texas?
 MT. Lomax-I am reading from the States cited in the argument of my learned friend MT. Blackwell. If there are others. don't knew it. I supposed he cited them all. But when you refer us to the great reform in the jurispru- dence and judicial system of a State why don't you refer us to some of the great States that have been the lead CTS in public thought for a century? Why don't you refer us to New York which, only a few years ago had a Constitutional Convention? Why don't you carry us to Massachusetts, where the law has always been executed in all the perfection of detail for one hun dred years. Why refer us to these lit- tie children that have grown up here like mushrooms in the last twenty years?
 Now my learned friend from Jeffer- son read on yesterday from an elabor- ate report that was made by a Com mittee, I believe it was said of sey- erty, to the English Parliament, in which they advocated the reform of the jury system. This very reform that is pro posed here now, the reduction of the number of the jury to m Ike a verdict t1 nine men.
 I tell you gentlemen of the Convcn- ticn. I do not believe tha. even :n these United States is the doctrine of constitutional liberty more deeply en- grafted than it is upon the soil .)f Eng land, and yet, notwithstanding tEat re- I0rt of the Committee in favor of this reform, England stands today upon a verdict of twelve men, and in 1t she Is followed by the most progressive, the most populous, the most prosperous, and the most enlightened States of tie American Union. and the An,eri, an Government itself. An, MT. President, but these gentlemen that talk abC ut reform, my friends. the refor n CTS, have not got the true metal of reform about them: 1t does not ring like the tocSin calling the people to awake. If 1t be true that this is a reform which s de- manded, if it be true that 1t ought 70 be done, because in the Congre $ Of the United States, in the Legislature of Alabama, in a great national cleo tiOn, a majority of one decides all ques- tions, and believe in looking over the list of citations which they have made, they cite but one single instance where majority of more than one is re- qu,c cd, and that is in the United States Senate on the question of the ratifi- cation of a treaty between the United St1tes and foreign power, where it requires wo-thirds-but If the majority rule is so good, if, by 1t, we can de- eide tie question of who shall be the President of the United States, if by 1t Wa can decide what shall be 'hG laws cf the commonwealth and of our co llnry, if by it we can decide wh It sh Ill he the rule of our Supreme Couris. why don't they come up to the full measure of their duty; why have you not the courage of your convic- lIOuS, anu COIlc out anu say IhdL d maJc rity of one on a jury shall decide the rights of property in Alabama? That does not sound like reform. If it is enod to have nine 10 iecidA the lsc. 1t is better to have seven. We know it because these gentlemen have said it. and we knew before they said it that in these other matters, a ma jority of one decided questions, even to the election of a president of the United States. If it be such a great reform, why, gentlemen, do you not apply 1t to criminal cases? Why do not you say that the jury shall have right by a majority of one to de- termine that mans life or his liberty shall be taken? Oh, they reply, that it is different thing. Is it differ ant? Do you know a man. gentlemen Of the Convention, that will not defend his property with his life, and if the man himself is so careless of his life, that he will defend his property with it, why should you be so careful of t as to take his property away. by less than twelve. and yet retain the twelve to keep him out of the penitentiary or away from the gallows?
 I submit to you, gentlemen of the Conv ention, if you adopt this propo- sition another thing will happen. You absolutely destroy the chances eor de- liberatior. in a jury box. If jury in opinion, and they must be unani- nous, those men will sit down and reason together they will discuss the