The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-07

LuoruoflDW, the feQulfement oA uhsn- imity, may we never swerve-may we
 never bs compelled in wish to swerve. | He like myself believed in the verdict Of q jury, and 1t is one of the greatest
 institutions that the country was ever
 blessed with. and by this improvement
 upon it, there can be nothing on earth
 that can replace 1t, but with 1t as 1t IS.
 It permits one man to corrupt the Jury l and to throttle the will of eleven.
 The President--The gentlemans lime
 has expired.
 A delesatezI move that the gentle
 mans time be extended for ten min- ! utes.
 The motion was carried.
 Mir. Beddow-I thank the gentleman | Under the present system. all that has
 to be done is that some friend to some
 lawyer be upon the jury and he VIII
 decide with him right or wrong. some
 person who has some interest in u.
 apart from justice and right, may pur- | chase him before he enters upon the trial of the cause. You cannot tell me
 that Is not the case. We see 1t every
 day in the week. In Birmingham not
 long ago there sat upon jury man
 who had said before the evidence had
 been heard, and before the charge or
 the court had been given to the jury,
 that he had come there for the purpose
 Of hanging the jury, and that he has
 his money in his pocket. and he was | gotug to sit there to make 1t a mis- trial. unless the case was decided ac- cordfng to the way he desired 1t de-
 cided. The case went to trial, and in that self same case. that man did hang l the jury and produce a mistrial. when there were eleven men who had agreed
 upon the verdict. You tell me that In
 an enlightened age like this. that cases
 like that should be permitted? That 1t | should be within the power of such l persons to prostitute justice? gay nay, nay, the time has come when we 1 should rise up in our might and puri- l fy the jury system, by putting 1t be- l yond the reach of corrupt practices to produce mistrfals. when Justice S on the one side os the other.
 Mir. Forsyth, further says: when the 1 House of Lords sit as court of ap | peal. or az criminal court to try a l peer or in tAe case of impeachment Of | a commoner. a bare majority of one is | sufficient to determine the judgment. and 1t may be fairly asked why the
 rule should be different for twelve jur- | ors. and why if there be single dis
 sentient amongst them. no verdict can | be given?
 | And gentlemen of the Convention. as
 early as seventy years ago. commis- sion in England. the place we get our l jury system. investigated the question | of the unanimity of the verdict of the jury, in the year 1880. and in their re- | port at that time they say. "it Is es- | sential to the validity of verdict that | the jury should be unanimous. and reg | ularly they are not allowed to be dis | charged unless by the consent of the | parties, until such unanimous verdict has been returned. 1t Is difficult to de- i fend the justice or the wisdom of the
 latter principle. It seems absurd that the rights of a party in question of doubtful and complicated nature,
 should depend upon his being able to
 satisfy twelve persons that one par ticular state of facts Is the true one. AS 1t Is notorious that upon such ques-
 tions body of men so numerous are
 often found to differ irreconcilably in
 their views. 1t is obvious that the me-
 cessity of returning in every case verdict, and a unanimous one. before
 they separate. must frequently lead
 to improper compromise among the | jurors of their respective opinions. There Is reason also to apprehend that 1 where any of them happen to he act l uated by .Nartial motives, it must tend | to produce a corrupt verdict Indeed | no one can have been much conversant | with courts of justice. without fre- | Quently having heard the remark. l where the. verdict has been very long
 in suspense. that one or other of the | contending parties has a friend upon the jury.''
 And acting upon that report. anu I fyH fhn 1tvh af kka | ous States of this Union have fallen
 into line and have adopted the salient feature that was recommended by that commission seventy years ago. In con- | cluding his remarks in this chapter, the author says. "the time is fast ap- | preaching. if 1t has not already come, when trial by jury. like every other part of our legal fabric. will become | the subject of public criticism, ana I feel persuaded that then 1t will be
 found impossible to justify or retain a
 rule which Is both opposed to justice and expediencv"
 Now. Mir. President, and gentlemen
 of the Convention. ih my county there ] are at least 25 per cent of the cases that go to the jury that result In a mis-
 trial. It amounts to thousands and thousands of dollars to be paid out by the tax payers of this State. for no | other purpose than of perpetuating a system that has been condemned bv
 the wisest and best men that this or any other nation have ever known. Why should We stand back? We are nere TOT the purpose of amending the Constitution. making it better, build
 ing It up. increasing its field
 or operation. and perfectine a
 system of law end of justice. If you will make this amendment to this trial by jury. by reducing it in civil cases to three-fourths, instead of the unanimity rule. it will produce great good to your State. It will pre- vent fraud and corruption in the tenn pies of justice, and under its beneficent influences this State will continue to grow and to prosper and the temple of justice will not be prostitued once where 1t is thousand times at present.
 MT. Boone-Mr. President and gentle men of the Convention, I wish to oc- cupy your time only about two or three minutes further, on one suggestion that has not been made in the arguments of the gentlemen that have preceded me. Nearly all of the reasons have been shown why the minority report should be adopted, but one, which it occurs to me Is of very great importance, show ing, as 1t does, the system of jurispru- dence in Alabama, where certainly as much property, as many rights are in- volved. This applies only in civil eases as proposed by the minority report, and If the arguments of the opponents of the measure are sound, why should Chancellor have the power to decide