The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-09

voted I submit m m0tton 70 reconsider is not In order.
 Mr. williams (lfsrenso,--1 voted Ays on the proposition. and now move to reconsider the vote by which Section
 The Presidsnt--The chair win make . ruling 60 that delegates can under stand. The chair ruled the other day on a similar question that while the rule is as referred to by the gentleman from Limestone. it ie the opinion of the chair and the general parliamentary authorities hold that c motion to recon slider must Dc made by one who voted in favor of the proposition, and it must af1lrmstiveIy appear that he did 50 vote.
 Mir. Williams (Marengol--I voted aye on the passage of the section, and I now desire to make . motion to recon sider the vote by which Section 10 was passed on Saturday. and I yield the floor to the gentleman from Limestone.
 Mf. Pettus--The old Constitution pro- vidss that no person shall twice be put in jeopardy of life and limb, and see no reason why an additional clause should be adopted Authorisins the courts to discharge jurors from the con- sideratton of any capse. and if the sec tion 10 adopted, that could be done over the protsst of the defendant as the prac- tice is and As ias been stated by the gentlenen who have advocated the adoption of the section. When a court now diecbarse the juffes it is by the con sent of the defendant. and the defend ant will not insist on forcing . verdict in an improper case. think this should an improper case, I think this should be amended 50 that the jury may be discharfed on the request of the ma jority of the jury as suggested by one of the delegates, or else 1t ought not at any rate to De done over the protest of the defendant. And if the amend ment is not adopted, making 1t reces- sary for the majority of the jury to concur in the request there otisSt to be q time limit. and 1t ought not to be charge the jury until 1t has been sit- ting for at least the limited time, and has made an earnest effort to agree on . verdict. %
 Mfr. o'Neai (Lauderdaley- y--This would srply to civil as well as criminal cases?
 Mir. pettus-I am speaking of the ef- feet 1t has on criminal cases. and don't think the other is matter of 90 much importance. As the rule now stands. can see there may be cases in which . hardship may be worked upon the jury. that defendant might insist on keeping . jury for . long time on account of the will of one of twelve men on the jury. but 1t seems to me that he would do 60 at his own risk. and that he would prefer q nistrial and other jury. but as this section now stands. as adopted Saturday, reported by the committee. the judge 10 author ixed to discharge the jury before they have made an attempt Co reach a yer dict, and 1t seems to me that 1t is rather too much arbitrary power to give him in this matter. and 1t ought to be limited so the jury will not be before certain time has elapsed after the case has gone to tn. jury. or ought to be done at the re- quest of a majority of the jury sitting on the case. and do not see. do not know of any instance of abVse under the old section. It seems to me after the case goes to the jury and the jury Is discharged when they might have reached c verdict acquitting the de- fendant that he has been twice put in jeopardy under this section. While have no argument to make on 1t, sub. init it is . dangerous innovation and this Convention ought to reconsider the section for the purpose of striking 1t out, and leaving it as 1t was in the of 1875. As the law Is now, it may be, as I said before. that it works Q hardship on the jury. But if you leave 1t as 1t is~now in this section it may work hardship on the defendant. and the defendants interest ought-to he protected and safe guarded. as Is the policy of our laws.
 MT. Jones (MontgoHery)-Mr. Presi- dent am in hearty sympathy with Ihe purpose which the committee had in view in giving the judge some power to jury in criminal case, but am in favor of reconsideration, be- cause think on a reconsideration we may better the article. Now ,t is known in United States coustS the judge can discharge teh jury whenever he sees proper in q criminal case. The rule has been otherwise In Alabama, but we know that judges Lfo human. like the rest of us. do Ilot think tf.e judge ought to have 1t in l.is power simply If the jury stays tut beyond what he thinks they ought }, to cay to them: T will discharge you: you have had time enough to find verdict" am in favor of reconsidering it for the purpose Of an amendment, that the judge on the request of six of the jur-
 
 would accomplish everything the com lnittee had in view and pc an impr ove- ment on the present.
 Mir. Lomax-Will the gentleman al- low me to call his attention to the fact that the language is that the "court may for reasons fixed by law, and that leaves .t to the Legislat-=e to say what shall authorize the discharge of B jury; the fixing of the particular rea- son for the discharge Is matter of de- tail that ought not to go into the Con- stitution.
 MT. Jones-I sec the force of that, but would not wish the Legislature to pass on it at all. My Idea would be that whenever half of the jury ask to be discharged and the judge in the ex- ercise of his judicial functions, thinks they ought to be discharged, to give nim the power to do 1t. It will be very 1ifflcult to frame reasons which would cover cases satisfactorily. and think t will be better left to the conscience ,f the judge on the request of six Jurors. E
 Mr. weatherly (Jefferson)-MayI I in Iuire if this would become operative without legislative action?
 MT. Lomax-No; the Legislature would have to make provision.
 Mir. Wiilett-This seems to me to be ! dangerous innovation: agree with what the gentleman from Limestone ,ays. The Legislature may prescribe Tor what reason jury may be dls- charged when they are apparently not going to agree, but the judge may act and what is the provision hat immediately follows, however ar- oitrarily that judge may act, however