The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-09

| gentlemen of this Convention, when the | minority representation on the jury In | the Federal Court was worth its | weight in gold-in gems of the most | priceless value, in the South. Recall | the days of reconstruction and you | can recall them. When you were be- ! fore the Federal courts the only bar I rier that stood between you and utter | humiliation was the minority on the jury. If there is anything in the world | that inspires-I was almost about to say disgust, but won't say thaE but | 1t inspires indignation for men to come here and attempt to overthrow an an- cient institution having elements in 1t which were put in 1t for the express purpose of protecting the weak against the strong. What can we foretell as to what conditions will confront us in this country, especially if we under take the suffrage law or even if we do not? How can any man predict the conditions that will arise which will require the protection of this jury in- stitution, as We have 1t now?
 Mir. Burns-Wiil the gentleman per init an interruption?
 MT. weatherfy-I must decline to be interrupted, MT. President. Now they ridicule 1t because 1t Is ancient The
  poraneous with the doctrine that the King could do no wrong. yet the Eng fish people cut off Charles First's head and destroyed that doctrine and left the jury system intact Why the English people and the system, gentlemen. are ten centuries old. Think of it, one thousand years old; and the English people have progressed and lived upon it. The highest social body in the world today, the English people, and they have gone through their court pro- cedures and reformed them root and branch. The English system of law is
 nothing today like 1t was one hundred years ago. Thag have changed and re- formed 1t entirely. but no EnRlishman
 has dared to lay his hand on this great institution.
 You might as well say a jury should
 be reduced to eight. Why have twelve instead of eight. That would require
 less deliberation. They would do 1t quicker but the reason is it was put there for purpose, it Is goodly number of men and it adds delibera- tion in the formation of a verdict. MT. Brooks-The proposition that -thirds of jury may render a ver- dict Is. as has been well stated by the gentleman who has taken his seat, a radical departure from our system of trials: but it is not a new proposition by any means. It mas been discussed for many years, and has received the favorable consideration of some of the strongest men in this country. 1t is an
 innovation and it is true that inova- tions are not always Improvements but blind adherence to system con-
 secrated by time merely will make it | i'm n0laihlQ f0 have innovations that are improvements.
 Now the gentlemen who oppose this proposition talk about its overturning
 the theory and policy of centuries, that 1t is a removal of the ancient land
 marks. But sir, we'll settled principles as well settled precedehts and customs must sometimes be modified by chang ed conditions and they must yield to the demand of an enlightened public sentiment. The conversation to reject merely because they overturn precedent and custom handicaps progress. and if
 we will apply to well settled precedents and customs and test existing condi- tions we may promote development and we may as individuals and as a people, if we profit by experience. make stepping stones of our dead selves to better things. When this matter was up for discussion, listened in vain for argument from those who are opposed to 1t, and not one word was said in de-
 bate. This distinguished convention
 which has always been so generous in
 it's views in respect to any matter be- fore it. so far as the opposition 10 this proposition is concerned, was as
 dumb as any oyster.
 Mir. LomaX-Will the gentleman per-
 init q question?
 Mir RrookS-YaS sir
 MT. Lomax-Is it not fact that after the gentleman from Macon and the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Jefferson had each spoken in favor of the minority report
 that then a motion was made to lay on the table so that all the debate from
 the majority was cut off? .. MT. Brooks-Yes, and the motion was
 made by the gentleman himself. the chairman of the committee.
 MT. Lomax-No. sir. I think 1t was ade by Mr. Barefield of Monroe.
 MT. Brooks-The chairman of the committee first made the motion to
 table and then withdrew 1t. but up to the time the chairman had made that
 motion no argument from that side had been made.
 MT. Lomax-I stated on Saturday and
 desire to state again, that I sat in my
 seat for half a minute waiting for some
 gentleman from the minority of the Committe to make some motion, or to discuss the question, and they failing to do 1t, made the motion to table and as
 soon as they indicated a purpose or a desire to discuss the matter, I with drew the motion to table and 1t was
 then renewed before the majority of
 the committee had an opportunity to
 discuss the proposition.
 MT. Brooks-I think the chairman of
 the committee understands the point I make. There is no inconsistency be-
 tween what he says and what say
 My contention is that up to the time
 the motion was made to table this
 resolution. no gentleman OF behalf of the committee had opposed this minor
 ity report by any argument to the Con-
 vention. and the stenographic report
 will bear me out in that statement.
 Now I state as a fact and I am glad at this late moment after we have only had an expression from the opponents of the measure by
 43 votes recorded Saturday, that they
 have at last come forward and put up
 some champions to defend their cause.
 Nows Mir. President, my own ref1ec-
 tions lead me to believe that this lan- guage embodying the principle of unan- imity of the jury in civil cases ought to be modified not only in the Interest
 of the parties litigant but of the coun-
 ties, cities and generally for the pub
 lie interest. I do not propose to go
 into any elaborate argument why this
 change should be made because much