Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1902-09-11

Ipe extras. Inc committee OF 80 asked
Mr.. Whiteman, as its attorney, to in
vestigate this contract and the work
thereon. lie employed an expert on
bridge work, who is employed in that
capaoity by the Chesapeake & Ohio
railroad, and at Mr.. Whiteman's re-
gust this expert made a full examina-
tion OF the contract. plans and shecifi-
cations ard completed bridge and he
reported that, in his opinion, it could
have been built, as he found it, for
So, 372.05, about 81, 200 less than what
il cost the county.
Mr.. Whiteman next referred to the
Seventh street bridge scandal. He said
the contract for that bridge was given
out for 30-foot bridge, for s25, 600.
The specifications were explicit, but for
some reasons the plans and specifica-
tions were changed in such q manner
that those who drew them up would
not know them. The result was a
2l-foot bridge, with piling and masonry
different from what we're provided for
in the original specifications, and it
had no abutments, The expert ex-
arnined it and arrived at the conclusion
that it could have been built, he be-
lieyed, as he found it, for $50, 300.
These instances, Mr. Whiteman said,
are partly accountable for the increase
in the counsy tax rate.
Mr.. Whiteman took up the jury
system. There are two kinds OF crimi-
mails, be said. One kind can be saved
by the right kind of law, and the right
kind OF law is necessary to punish
another class.
In The old jury system, he said, many
OF the men appointed up to about q
year ago were of such class that
nsearly every litigant who could afford
II asked for special jury, which cost
from 500 to 300, which extra expense
had to be borne by the litigant. There
was reason for this. 1t was very
siffgnilicant.
He reviewed the Levy Courts con
nection with the jury panels up to
about year ago, when the attorney
general asked for and had the entire
panel thrown out and the court ordered
q new jury drawn. As result. he
said, there was only one case in that
term Of court for which there was a
special jury, and that was a case which
had been holding over for several terms.
1t had been evident before that time
that soma of the Levy Courtmen had
been appointing men on the jury who
were their hencnnlen, which made the
Jury panel their creature; men who
were under obligations to the men who
had appointed them.
1t was impossible for people of limited
means to pay for special iuries, and
they were the sufferers in consequence.
1t should not be 50. II should be that
every man indicted can have fair
OF thn hu - 4
regularly by the prothonotary.
Mr.. Whiteman explained that the
proposed change would take the APP
pointing power out of the hands of the
Levy Court. 1t contemplates the ap-
pointment of two Jury commissioners
IN each county, who have no part in
expanding the public money and in
which they have no direct interest.
He pointed out where, in the event of
any dereliction of duty on the part of
the people having charge of the public
finances, they would be tried by jury
not of their selection, and, knowing
this, they would be deferred from the
commission of a crime. Thus they
would be saved by this proposed new law
jury bill providing for this plan
was endorsed by about 90 or 20 members
of the bar and the entire bench and
twice passed the Senate, and Mr..
Whiteman has been asked many times
whether he will not again renew his
efforts in the matter at the next session
OF the Legislature, showing the great
interest in the matter.
He pointed out where time and again
incompetent iuries have brought out
rageous verdicts and verdicts contrary
N in faaf -, -.
the court, but it cannot trespRss upon
the province of the jury.
Mr.. Whiteman said there were a few
people who made objection to the pro-
posed measure, their excuse being that
two men could not know all of the men
III the county as we'll as all OF the Levy
Courtmen but to offset this, he pointed
out that the plan was borrowed from
the United States Court, where it works
we'll, and the only difference is that in
the United Court two men pick iuries
| from the entire State, while under the
| proposed law two jury commissioners
are contemplated for each county.
He said that Prior to about year
| ago, when a new era began, in nearly
every case of concurrent jurisdiction,
where a case could be tried either in
\ the United States Court or the county
court. the defendant asked that his
case be removed to the United States
Court, when two men pick the Jurors
from the entire State.
| No system is good, he said, which
will PERMIT of the trial of officials who
may violate the law by men that they
have themselves appointed on tho jury.
lie admitted that the seven Levy
Courtmen might know more people
than two Jury commissioners, hut pas
experiences teaches that this plan ha.
not resulted in the kind of iuries t,
which litigants are entitled.
fle said that as far as he had OBJ
served the administration OF justice b,
the courts of law, if he was limited L
one choice in the change of public
affairs, he would prefer change il
the Jury system to everything else
Ilis, he told his hearers, is matte
which rests with the people He under
stood that number of organized
bodies had approved of the proposed
plan, including the Kent Count,
Grange, and the matter is to b,
brought before the State Grange.
The lawyers, he said, are not tn
people who are particularly concerned
In every case there are two or NOR
lawyers, and one side must win and thu
other side must lose. He had no com
plant against the iuries for the pas
year or so, but there was no guarantee
that such condition would continu.
II was rot so formerly and would no
have been so had it not been for tn
laundering method in which the jur
was drawn year or so ago, whioi
enabled the court to throw out tn
entire panol. The court cannot, how
ever, throw out jury because it j
considered incompetent There mus
be some other reason.
He emphasized the fact that there i