The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-07

| 0utuc keDNiemeu Cile uS III UHRy11e4Vu to our contention to sections of the United States Constitution, but those sections do not apply to the State | courts and the State Constitutions can | absolutely fix any number that they feel inclined to as a jury. The um- Der of jurors is limited in these States | have just mentioned. In Montana in | civil Cases two-thirds of the jury can | render verdict. In Idaho in all cases | of misdemeanors five-sixths can render | a verdict. In Iowa the legislature may authorize verdict by less than twelve jurors in any of the inferior courts of the State.
 | As l say. some have objected to this, claiming there Is some conflict with the rights guaranteed by the Constitu- ton of the United States. But the rights not delegated to the United States bv the Constitution nor prohib- ited by the States are reserved to the States. and while the first six or seven amendments to the Constitution of the
 United States concede the right of trial by jury as they do not mention the State. they are not to he understood as restricting the powers of the States and the States if they choose can pro- vide for trials for all offenses against the State.
 Mir. Bulger-Does this section report- ed by the Committee prevent the legis- lature from providing for a majority | verdict?
 l MT. Blackwell-Yea Heretofore the opinion has been that where no num- Der was mentioned a jury meant twelve and that is unquestionably the result of everything that have read onathat subject.
 | Mir. Boone-Has it not been decided by the Supreme Court of the United l States that the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States apply to Federal power and not to States.
 Mir. Blackwell-we are not talking about Federal power in this matter. | MT. Boone--But say that is tfle linn ttation upon Federal power and not the power of the State. so that the State has the power to make this amend ment?
 MT. Blackwell-There are cases in which juries are not used now. such as contempt of court and it is doubtful If a jury is alright in a contested election case as shown in our Alabama decis- ions and in damages to property taken for the public, the party is not entitled undes many decisions to a trial by jury unless the Constitution of the State provides a tribunal for that pur- r-s pose. The courts have said, where they have held that, that it is no more essential to have upanimity than the common law qualifications of jurors which have been continued in force The President-The gentleman's time has expired.
 Mir. Beddow-f rise to endorse the re- port of the minority of this commit | just taken his seat has truly said. in all lines and in all departments of life great progress has been made except in this one feature of our government-trial by jury. A number of States have already made some progress along this line, but Ala bama is still in the rear.
 Mir Boo1e-She has not had the op- portunity.
 l Mir. Beddow-This is the first oppor- tunity she has had. As I say, great progress has been made along all lines except this. I know there are gentle men in this Convention who will say that the trial by jury of twelve men Is matter that comes to us. from an- | cient days, and Is consecrated by prece- dent and cemented by time, but all this | argument has been fully answered by the gentleman who has just taken his seat. ! Because thing is old is no reason
 
 der that argument, the boy was right | who was going to mill. There was a boy going to mill with bag of corn to | be ground and in one end of the bag he had corn and in the other a rock. He asked why he didn't put a peck of corn on the other side and carry a half bushel instead of just one peck. He said his father always carried a rock in one end of the bag and corn in the | nth A VrraG H- IrnA Aok up.
 | That Is the argument that the oppo- sition used. Now we have some great | men and some good men who are advo- | eating this doctrine that q majority even q majority of the jury-shall be able to render a verdict. One of our Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, David J. Brewer. in a recent lecture to the students of Yale College advocated the abolition of the systenl2of unanimous verdicts by ju- Judge A. B. Grace shows the ridicu- lousness of requiring unanimity in jury He says This Is an error that | should not continue to exist. The ma jority system would practically remove the temptations of bribery. Under our law now one juror can dictate to all of the eleven others or make a mis- Il. d | to fix one juror. Then he can have one | of these rnistrials, but with the ma jority system, he would have to hfiee six jurors instead of one to even get mistrial which would always most surely leak out. and to get verdict he would have to bribe seven jurors. and | to keep his bribe secret would be practically impossible"
 Then he calls attention to facts that show the impractibility and the ridiD- | ulousness of enlightened States contih- l uing the system of unanimous Juries. He says Tn every relation of life in America where the result is made to depend on the opinions and decisions of a number of persons, the principle of majority rule has been adopted with the sole exception of the verdict of a jury"
 A majority of one vote in each house of a General Assembly of Congress suffices to create, repeal or change a positive law, regardless of the magni tude of the interests involved, as in the case of g currency bill, tariff bill or a declaration of war.
 A majority in the National Senate ratifies or refuses to consent to 8 treaty with a foreign power.
 A majority of a single vote in half a million in a pivotal State may elect a President of the United States, change the entire policy of the Government, l and bring prosperity or ruin to 70,000,- | 900 of people. Yet lawyers. good law yers, honest and patriotic lawyers, will |