The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-01-24

another law for some one else to re-
peal, and in the meantime put yourse1
and myself, perhaps, in danger OF being
tried by a packed jury. We can't at1oro
to do it,
J. A. Buclxlin. Of Thomas, interposed
an unprOfessiOnal opinion that the peo-
pIe OF Kansas had come to the conclu-
sion that 1T was impossible 70 convlcL
criminal. and favored the passage OF
the bill.
the bill of rights in the support OF his
contention that the measure was not
constitutional and read the section pro
viding that a man must be tried py Al
impartial jury. He held that the SUI
preme court would invalidate the Dill on
those grounds. Impartial meant lean
ing to neither one. side nor the oJnefs ne
said A Jury should not be allowed TO
be made up Of men who had preJudSed
the case before they went into the box
If a man goes into the box with an
opinion it can't be SO slight as TO not
affect his judgment. Opinions RUE
you" he said Opinion makes a man a
Populist. or a Republican, or Demo
crat. If You are without an OPINION Il
makes you mugwump.
Mr.. Mason defended his measure, say
ing that the present law was not suited
to modern times 1t had been IN 1ofce
for years and years, it was true, but
that very fact was against It. When
the state bill of rights was formulated
the newspaper, the telegraph and other
modern methods OF disseminating news
quickly were not up to their present
status Now everybody gets to know Of
events fully and quickly and laws must
be made to keep abreast of the times.
To questioning by Mckeever he ad-
mitted that courts rule that a man may
be a juror who has read accounts or
things in the newspapers
Mr.. Bowman called attention to the
expression sometimes heard that a law
yer would rather. leave a just cause to
a judge than to a jury And nobody
ever thinks of asking if the judge has
an opinion when everyone knows that
he is familiar with all the details Of the
affair Impartial doesn't mean an abso-
lutte blank It means an absence of
bias or prejudice. An impartial juror
means one who will hear the evidence
and abide by his oath in rendering the
verdict. An honest man will not vio-
late his oath. Tt has been my experience
in examining jurors that an honest man
win say, if he has the least sort OF an
impression, Yes in reply TO the question
if he has formed an opinion, rather than
risk perjury That man is the best juror
But the man who is willing to perjure
himself under the last oath, regarding
the rendering of a verdict. viii periure
himself under the first oath and reply,
No. sir, I have not formed an opinion
There is no way Of keeping this kind OF
a man out of the jury box now unless
you use up all your peremptory chal-
1enges, and if they can run in u men
who are the most consumTnate liars they
will pack juries in spite of the best at
torneys.
Lawyers are on one side ofthe teeter-
board and on the other They are AFFECT
ed both ways should like to try this
system for two years"
MIR. Hamer said the admission OF Mr.
Mason that the reading of papers does
not now necessarily disQualify jurors
showed the bill unnecessary Until he
has read the papers enough to form a
set opinion man is an acceptable juror
This bill is an entering wedge to change
the whole jury system. All this howl
is raised to accomplish something that
is practically already had. Trial by an
impartial jury has had years Of applica-
ton and we cannot now adord 70 go
experimenting What assurance is there
that at the end of the two years trial
that is proposed to give the plan those
who have been WrOngfully put in the
pen will be brought out and given their
Just dues or that those who escaped it
will be apprehended anew and placed
there"
H c. DooIey of Montgomery, r. R.
Rees of Ottawa Ed Weilep of Cherokee,
u s. Griffin of Jefferson and Lew Belts
of Butler, also participated in the debate
The latter switched around completely
from his position of the day previous
and advocated the bill because the far
mers would appreciate the reduced trou-
bic and cost of getting jury In a
widely known case.
Not very much was said about the
Morrison trial in the concluding days
arguments that decided that Kansas
should retain its present challenges OF
jurors intact.
NON-PRoFEssION TELL
S4ORlES.
Two on-professiona1s, who entered
into the lawyers debate over Mason
jury bill in the house, evaded deep wa
ter and contented themselves by telling
stories. They were Ed Weilep and u. s.
Griffin.
This was the contribution Of the mar
from Cherokee:
Now what shall we fellows do what
don'd know anything aboud law. ] tirlS
we viii dalze advantage Of the bolicy Of
te old ArIansaW legislator.
Someone asked him w he always
voted No
sfVel,' he replied, III a goot law vas
passed nobody loogks to see who voted
for it. But if bad law vas passed ev-
erbody loogks to see who voted for it.
las cannot determine de quality OF
dis measure I am going to vote No :"
Out Of the rear seat Of the second
aisle on the south side Griffin, Of JET
ferson, emanated- The most conspicu-
Gus things about his appearance were a
heavy voice for a small man and far
/ ing red bow tie Mr.. Griffin volunteered
to 'chip in a few" His anecdote ran as
= well known politician was out
campaigning and in a certain small
town a fellow approached the spell
binder to ask a point-blanlS question.
who are you for-LeWeIling or Over
myer?''
He evaded the point however by an
swering: You're coming to hear z-1e
speak tonight are you nct2"
Yes
''Xven. you listen close and II you cant
figure it out for yourself at the END,
come to me and I'll tell you"
The fellow agreed and listened to his
two horn harangue with proper patience.
The spell-binder saw him coming and
had to stand, because he couldn't reach
the door handily. So he put on a bold
front and called out gaily:
Now you know, don't you. Which is
it-Lewelling or Overrnyer2''
We'll. I'm not sure Of it. You tell me
as you promised.
''Ahenn-well-to tell the truth really
don't know myself"
Griffin made this application: 'I guess
! these fellows are not sure that thew
/ -. II