The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-09

and people of this state are not clam. bring for this. Nobody wants ft except men who are hostile and who are out after corporations In this State. This question wss not discussed before the people of Alabama. Nobody claimed that we were going to fix . three- quarter clause 70 far as juries were concerned.
 MT. Williams t,darengo) )--wAs it not discussed to this extent, that we were not to tamper with the jury systemf
 Mir Long--I cannot answer that. I don't know, but do know there was this State 90 far as I know. ft was not in the Democratic platform. Here we are asked to give up . system that has existed for centuries. If there Is merit in this question there should be power given to the Legislature to do this. SO if 1t proves . bad thing 1t can be un- done. But there is no sensible reason why 1t should be put Tn the Constitu- ton Of Alabama. The people will rise up and rebuke it, you will invite the hostility of the cornorations in Ala bama. The farmers themselves will re- bukc 1t. and believers in fair play will rebuke 1t. am opposed to the thfee- quarter clause in the insurance laws of
 
 clause in the jury laws. Why, when the lawyer comes to select the jurors in murder case. or in ar important case. they select some sap headed. fellow who has got nothing himself and wants no- body else to have anything, and puts him on the jury. Nine times out of ten you cannot get over threee smart men On the jury on an average In thts State. You know that is fact. have heand arguments made in the jury room myself that 50 and 50 has plenty of moneg. this corporation Is rich. this poor fellow Is poor. let us take 1t away from them. Everybody knows that that has happened in the jury box. think deal of harm in Alabama. I want the Convention to look at this thing fair In the face and ask is 1t right to put a taree-quarter clause in our Constitution which will invite the antagouism of everybody in the State, that wants fsir play, corporatiins and everybody clsef The people don't want 1t. and I hope and believe this Convection will not have 1t done
 MT. Thompson-The proposition of the minority admits that 1t is danger. Gentlemen of the Convention, if it is good in civil cases why is it not good m ofhHhh@i lccoSsF Dy every rute N ought to come In criminal cases be- proof in . criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt makes it harder to get . unanimous verdict than N does in civil cases. where the plaintiff only has to make out his case to the req sonabie satisfaction of the jury. say if 1t is good in a civil case, 1t ought to apply in criminal case. don't be- lieve there are three men in the Con-, vention who for . moment would think of taking a mans life or hls liberty except upon . unanimous verdict. Then I submit that . mans property or his homestead ought to be just as sacred as his liberty. It Is not right to take his land in an ejectment suit, for those cases often turn upon questions of fact and are submitted to the jury. That his subsistence ought not to be taken; that his hard-earned dollars should not be taken upon the whim of nine men. As has been mentioned by the gentle man from Walker. it is rarely the case In an average county in Alabama that you have over two men out of twelve who are of such intelligence as they can weigh the evidence and apply the charge of the court to 1t.
 Then If you put it in the power of nine men belonging to the average hoodium element. if they know they are not bound to sit there and listen to the statements and arguments of . man on that jury who they recognize is superior in intelligence to them- selves. that they have not got to be governed by or listen to him at all. they will stand there buli-headed and bring in a verdict regardless of law, justice and right. Then, I submit that If three quarters ts q good rule. if we are going to depart from ancient land marks and leave out Q unanimity ver- dict. # they believe in majority rule. let us have majority rule. Let us have 1t in criminal cases. too. submit no man would think of that for a moment. It Is entirelys too revolutionary. and I submit to the gentlemen of the Con- this Is the most revolutionary subject yet introduced in this Conven- tion. It is frAught with more danger and will stir up more opposition to the of this Constitution than anything yet, unless, perhaps, 1t was the talk taken on the subject of eher- | ifs. This certainly equals that. and, as has been said. no man ever discuss ed this on the stump, except to prom | lse that the jury system should not be Interfered with. Gentlemen of the Con- remember that two years ago in the manifesto Issued as one of the caukes assigned why the act calling a Constitutional Convention should De repealed, 1t was said that there was no pledge then given that the jury system should not be interfered with. Then, 1T It was not discussed. and there is no claim that anybody asked for It except | as has already been said by gentlemen interested in holding up corporations for big verdicts, why should 1t be | adopted. I will make the admission that I have never tried case for I submitted to . jury. nave never tried . case before Q jury ! am not interested in the matter in any | .ense.
 Mir. Boone-would you say that and | Governor oates and Mir. Murphree and | Governor Jones of Montgomery are en- | saged in holding up oorporations2
 Mir. Thompson-I do not mean that | every man of the 4s who voted for this l is engaged in such a busi- | less. do not individualize.
 submit, MT. President, we ought not | o depart from a system that has been | | part of our law so long, part of | ,ur American system that has existed | Or so long ought not be broken down | except for good reasons, and if we are | soing to break 1t down in one instance, break it down in all.
 MT. Martini can not get my con ,ent to vote in favor of this amendment hat proposes to alter a rule of law of ,uch long standing in this country. Why 1t has been so long that the mem- ,ry of man runneth not to the contrary.