The age-herald., 1901-07-09

tion.
 MT. Willett of Pickens also favored a reconsideration. He thought the section dangerous innovation. It allowed a judge to discharge a jury against the protest of defendant.
 MT. Watts thought the delegates did not understand the section, which, he explain ed, left 1t to the legislature to prescribe what rules and under what circumstances jury should be discharged.
 Mir. Lomax, chairman of the committee, explained that the sole purpose of the section was to authorize the legislature to say when jury should be discharged, and if discharged, the defendant could not plead former jeopardy Under the present law in Jefferson and other coun- ties a defendant might keep a jury hung out for three months. It left 1t to the legislature to say when and how jury should be discharged. He moved to lay upon the table the motion to reconsider. This was done by vote of 52 to 37.
 The Jury Question.
 The convention then took up the pend- ing question, which was the minority re- port of the committee to section 12 of the declaration of rights, recommending that three-fourths of a jury might rem der verdict
 MT. Long of Walker opposed the mi- nority report. He said 1t was in the inter- est of men who were hostile to corpora tions and wanted to get unjust verdicts. He said that if 1t was to be done at all, the power should be given the Legisla- ture to do 1t, so if it proved bad it could | be repealed. He was opposed to a three | fourths clause in an insurance policy, and l why should he favor a three-fourths | clause in jury?
 MT. Thompson of Bibb said that the mil | nority report on its face showed that it | was bad, in that it did not apply to criminal cases If 1t was not good meas i, ure in a criminal case, where the burden | of proof was higher, why should it be a | good thing in a civil case, where the de- gree of proof required was not so great?
 No one would think of taking a mans | life on a three-fourths verdict of jury, | and why should we take a mans property | on such a verdict? If we do not require | unanimous verdict, why require a. three fourths vote of the jury-why not leave 1t | to majority?
 MT Martin of Calhoun opposed altering | custom which has existed so long in | the history of jurisprudence. Why had | this law remained so long without any | demand for its change. unless it had been | found useful and efficient? It was unwise | to change a long established custom.
 Captain White of Jefferson said the mo- tives of gentlemen should not be assailed. | It had been stated that those in favor of | the change wanted to hold up corpora tions. Well, there were forty-three of | them, and he might with equal justice re- ply, though he would not, that those who l | opposed 1t were representing corporations. | It was true the jury system was ancient, but so were other customs. It went back l to the times when men and women were | burnt at the stake because they imagined | the death of the king or refused to admit | | that the bread and wine was the body of | the Savior. It went back to the time when the king could do no wrong, but our an- | cestors had repudiated this doctrine over | one hundred years ago.
 want to put the question to you on It's merits, he said. Of the twelve men all l the virtue does not lie in one man. What | right has one man to stand up and | thwart the will of the eleven. We are in the Twentieth century when men are 1 advancing. Shall we cling to this thing simply because 1t originated in the dark ages This amendment will purify the stream of justice. You can't tamper with four men as easy as with one.
 Mr. WeatherIy Speaks.
 MT. weatherly of Jefferson said that when a distinguished .ex-Governor charged while Governor that there was danger of a Constitutional Convention tampering with the declaration Of rights and tampering with the right of trial by jury he had ridiculed the idea, but he now perceived the Governors foresight, for here was the convention actually at- tempting to take away one of the most essential features of jury trial. The minority ask why should a unani- nous verdict be required as a majority l of one vote in this convention would establish an organic law. He denied this as it must go to the people to be ratified. A minority of the people of the United States do not elect President as the minority report states. On the contrary under our system of electing our Presi dent a minority of the people can elect President and have done it. Juries act | speedily, under excitement at times, and to give a majority the right to bring in a verdict will cause many unjust yer diets to be rendered. Each juror must l act under his conscience and if majority | could reach a verdict on the first ballot | there would be one chance to deliberate and confer so as to allow each juror to present his view. On the doctrine of | probabilities the probability of a verdict being incorrect when rendered by nine | men is one out of 21, while when yer dict is required to be unanimous the | probability of it's being incorrect is only one out of 5000. When your land Is sought to be condemned under the right of emil nent domain and a majority of the jury | who want the railroad are against you | 1t is the small minority on that jury | who stand up for your rights.
 Think what the minority on JurleS nave done for you in the days of reconstruc- tion. Those were days when the minori- ty was worth it's weight in gold. The jury system is one thousand years old and England has reformed her judicial system root and branch but no English man has dared to lay his hand on this sacred institution. England today has prospered on this system and Is the most civilized country In the world.
 Mir. Brooks of Mobile said the majoriy vote of jury was an innovation, but no new proposition. It had been discussed and received the approval of some of the most prominent jurists in the country. He thought the unanimity of verdicts ought to be modified in the interests of the public, as well as of the litigants. This would be no worse for corporations than for individuals
 pr. Cunningham Speaks.
 Dr. Cunningham said that so far all the discussion had been from lawyers. and that he thought 1t time to hear from the people He for one believed that the world do move" but he did not think this change would be for the interests of the people. It would work hardship on some of the corporations He spoke of the | experience of witnesses on the stand in being subjected to cross-examination with view of discrediting them before the jury. If this law passed IL would favor damage suits. Who pays the verdicts against corporations? Is 1t not the peo- pie? Do not corporations add these ver- | l..tz l.-l- 70 Ntx.r~O