Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1901-09-25

Mr.. Editor: L have read with much
interest the debates in the constitu.
tionsl convention on the various
questions which have been brought
before 1t. One of the great objects
of this convention was to reduce the
expenses of the State and county gov
ermsnts. We were assured by the
men who favored it, that the expense
of holding is would be saved many
times by the adoption of new con-
stitutlon such as would be given us.
1t was belived that our Judiciary
system offered fine field for reform
and reduction of expenses TO this
end MIR. Braxton offered a provision
to the Bill of Rights to cut down the
number of jurors to seven and allow
= majority of five TO determine in all
civil cases. Mr.. Braxton made one
of the strongest and most convincing
arguments In its support that l have
ever read on any question. see now
that his proposition was defeated by
large majority, at least for the pres
ent, aud it may be for good This
would have saved large amount of
money to she taxpayer and also to
litigants IN hung juries, etc.
| had great faith in the conven-
vention, In its ability and honesty of
purpose, to make such constitution
as they promised. now begin to
have doubts and approximations rs to
the final outcome. SO far every prop
OsitiOn that mas been brought before
the convention looking to a reduction
of expenses has been voted down.
therefore we sre justified in having
doubts. 1t Is claimed that this has
been handed down to us from antiq-
uity, and therefore should stand. We
1.-Two IN progressive age aud because
u thing is ancient is no recommends
ton to 1T, unless it has proven to be
the beat. On this theory farmers
would still be reaping wheat with a
cycle, tramping or haying it out, and
then getting the chaff out by flaming
it IN their shirt tails. AS Mr.. Brax-
ton well said that one man might de-
eide who is to be the President of the
United States, your Congressman or
| Senator, decide a case IN the Supreme
Court where millions may be involved
and sacred rights at stake, vet with
ali this we must stick To this anti
quated practice or custom of twelve
jurors and a unanimous verdict
Does it not look absurd, foolish, idi-
otto ? The writer of this has served
on good many juries aud knows
something of the process by which
they arrive at a verdict. In the ma.
jority of the cases it is compromise
Sometimes one or two decide it and
the others acquIesce. Then again,
there is one or two who will hang the
jury and the case has to be gone over
again with the attendant cost to State
and litigants. Sometimes the court
instructs the jury to bring in yer.
dict for one party or the other. but
most frequently the instructions OF
the court are like those given by al
Arkansas Judge, with little variation
and runs about rs follows
IF the jury believe what the plaintiffs
lawyers say tney Will bring in verdict fOl
lhe plaintiff; on the other hand if they be
lieye what the defendants lawyer says they
= Will bring IN verdict for him; but if yoT
believe as do and don't believe either one
d if know what you will do"
If there is any way in which the
administration of justice can be mad,
E more popular it should be done, and
, | know of no better way to do it thar
. to allow majority or three-fourths
of jury to decide. hen when 8
man goes into court he will have
; some assurance that his case will bt
E tried quickly and believe more lust.
ly than under the present plan
: There is only one redeeming feature
. under our present system, aud thai
is, when a man has been in court
once and had taste of it, if he ha,
any property-anything to lose-wil
make any reasonable sacrifice before