The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-10-19
BILL OF RIGHTS /
in con VEN ton
First Ordinance Taken Up for fina
Action.
MR.. MooRE's AMENDMENT LOST
Mr. Green's Motion 10 Limit Debate is Passed
by Proceedings Of the
Day il De-
First Ordinance Tsken Up for fina
MR.. MooRE's AMENDMENT LOST

ldis.
Tho Constitutional Convention yestef-
fay devoted nearly all Of its session 10
,onssaerat5on et the report OIL the COM
n,,.teo on Preamble and 1911! OF R!shls.
scyen.r.foi1r members answered To thei1
names and there were a nuinoer oil spec
tators present. including Gov. Tyler, Col.
Archer Anderson and wife and t1oh MI.
Keiney member of The pennsylvania.
Legislature
on motion OF Judge Green, his amend
s.ei. limiting debates on all questions ~
that no member shall speak more IMAM
twenty minutes on a pending propositloii
vas passed by, and then he called up the
reror.t OF the Bill Of Rights Committee.
Seven sections We're finally passed upon
without debate or material amendment,
and then section s. in relation 10 .fiai ps
Jury. came UP. and occupied the fctnaih-
dcr of the day. Mr.. Moore. OF Fairfax,
pffered an amendment providing that IN
discretion the court may dispense with
a jury In the trial of criminal case,
where 1t is so agreed I,y al parties. After
8 debate lasting several hours, the
amendment was lost. and the convention
adjourned until 10 O'Clock to-day the sec
ton still being before the body Enacted
upon.
THE DAY IN DETAIL.
The convention met ct 10 O'Clock. DR..
Cooper offering prayer. There were seven
ty-fDE- Ire1i bers present.
Petitions favoring the Barbour liquor
traffic resolution were presented.
Leave OF absence was granted to several
members.
Petitions against removal O. the Agri-
cultural Department TO Blacksburg were
presented.
The resolution offered by Judge Green.
limiting debates on questions before the
convention TO twenty minutes, came up
Tor consideration. Judge Green asked that
1t be passed by He said consideration Of
The Bill OF Rights would come before the
convention to-day. Some members desired
to make long speeches. and he did not
feel like cutting them off.
Judge Quarles vigorously opposed post
ponement He declared that he had al
ways fought for the fullest debate in the
Committee of the Whole, ard now, when
matters were in shane to be acted on,
he IVES opposed to delaying for one day
the work Of the convention by having TO
again go through long speeches over
matters that had been once thoroughly
discussed. IIe thought The convention
could easily complete the work now be-
fore it by the middle of next week
end it should take a recess without pay
until after the election.
The motion 10 postpone was carried.
Yeas. 80: 1lavs. "a.
TRIAL BY JURY.
The ELL of Rights was then called up
for final disposition and the first seven
SECTIONS were adopted without division.
To section eight providing FOR juries
of less than twelve in certain cases and
relating TO dispensing of g jury on plea of
guilty, DR.. Dunaway offered substitute
Jor the whole section He said it was
only a slight difference of words. not
changing the substance at all, and IT
met with the approval of the commit
tee.
Mr.. Mccre offered an amend1n INT SO
thEt in any criminal case by the consent
of both parties. the court might hear
End determine the case without the in
PREVENTION of jury. AIR. Braxten op-
posed the amendment and said the prop
usition vas shocking to any mans sense
of Justice. He declared il was an eX-
pertinent almost unheard OF in this conn-
Try. 1t had been tried in Connecticut
rrd SOON abolished.
MIR. BraStnn then made an earnest ar
Eument against the amenGment along
the same lines fully reported i'll the pro-
ceedings of the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Moore, of Fairfax. interrupted MIR.
Iraxton and injected a brief reply to
the latters remarks Mr.. Walker did
likewise. Mr.. Brasten proceeded in an
:.ple manner To oppose the amendment.
His plea WAS an able one and he spoke
With great carnestncss.
Colonel Petit spoke ably along the
same line With Mr.. BraSton. HIS ef-
fort was a clear and foreeful one.
Mr.. Petit gave a minute description of
The modus operandi of a criminal prosecu-
ton from It's inception 10 the execution
of a sentence. He cited numerous au-
thorities to show how jealous the law was
of the rights of an accused person. and
strongly opposed the amendment as sub
versive OF justice and dangerous to the
liberties of all citizens.
JUDGE BROOKS SPEAKS.
Judge Broj1e said this was the third
time this question had been discussed,
and lie had not expected TO speak. He
vas so conripced oG the danger OF the
amendment that he could not refrain
from opposing it If public sentiment
became so strong against 4 prisoner as
TO enter into The minds OF a jury so that
he could no; get an impartial trial, why
would that same sentiment not permeate
and influence the Judgment of the Judge?
Judge Brooke then related his expert
enee as a judge Of a court of criminal
jurisdiction in Norfolk for eleven years
and pointed out how an accused person
would be prevailed upon 10 waive trial
by jury and submit his case to the judge.
The ignorance of criminals would be JIM
s,tsed upon by prosecuting attorneys. He
contendsd that not only the prisoner,
lmt the Judge would be seriously embar-
raised by the passage Of the amendment.
IT would absolutely destroy the trial by
infy In ninety per cent. of criminal eases.
lie urged that some OF the old lard
marks the people had been taught TO re-
we're be preserved.
Mr.. Turnbuli said not a single common
sense, business or practical reason had
been given Tor opposing the amendment.
He lad listened carefully. as chairman of
the Committee OF the Whoie. to the ey-
tended argument there, ana was COM
PEELED 10 say the whole objection was
founded on false reasoning. If not a. false
sentiment