Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-01-29
CURRENT DISCUSSION.

/, things necessary to elevate Its character.
make 1t a fair representative OF the
highest intelligence Of the community or
at least of the average, and not, as II
now generally is, of the lowest intelh-
gence make these suggestions as help
ful in the matter. First, give them bet
ter COMPENSATION. AS rule they are
paid no more than the ordinary day
wages of an unskilled laborer, and 1t is
generally true that poor pay brings poor
service. Better eight jurors reasonably
paid than dozen poorly paid. Second
ly. free the work of the juror from
some of the disagreeable annoyances
which now too often attend it. He
should not be compelled to work more
hours than the judge. To shut him up
and keep him confined day and night IS
crime against society. He is treated
too often as an object of suspicion-as
tho he were probably dishonest and
must be specially shielded from tempta-
ton. Why should he be shut up while
the Judge is not? A bad man on the
bench or in the jury box will surely find
ways to be tempted. and few things are
more calculated to degrade his Office IN
the sight of the juror. and to bring out
all the evil that is in him, than the con-
seriousness that he is an object of suspi-
cion.
Every one knows that in an important
case the struggle of counsel is to secure
one or more jurors who are friendly to
their client or in sympathy with the
cause or interest with which he is iden-
tilted, or who may be easily influenced
by appeals to prejudice or sympathy
The intelligent business man, the me-
chanic, and the farmer too quickly re-
spond to the voice of the Judge demand
ing justice. and hence, If possible. they
must be excluded and the ignorant, cas-
lily moved by appeals of counsel Sc
cured. Let the rule of unanimity be
abolished and the result determined by
the conclusions of two thirds or three
fourths of the jury, and this struggle
after the single helpful juror will large
ly disappear. And why should it be
deemed essential? Neither in legislative
halls among judges. in arbitration pro-
ceedings, nor in scarcely any other body
called to make a determination, is it the
rule. In my Judgment, the great objec-
tion to the jury system, as it is admin
istered today. and the one which more
is this rule of unanimity. Were 1t abol-
ished. less time would oe wasted in inn
paneling jury. and a better class of
jurors would ordinarily be selected.
More than that, the truth would be
more certainly determined.
But the final question is. whether it
is worth while to preserve the system,
even with the amendments suggested.
For myself, l believe in the jury and
that it should be preserved as factor
in judicial Investigations, and for these,
among other, reasons. 1t is tribunal
which comes into being with the occa-
sion and vanishes with the end IF the
trial. The community soon forgets who
sat upon it, and there is no building UP
of prejudice aginst the individuals who
composed it. How seldom do we see in
the papers any complain of the jurors
who try case, while the judge who
presides at the trial is often thereafter
the subject of bitter attack.
Again, there are many questions whose
determination can not be according TO
any strict rules of measurement, and yet
they must be settled. Is there any bet
ter way than, as 1t We're, by asking the
community how they should be settled?
And that is done by leaving them to a
jury, who, in theory at least, announce
the average judgment. Take suits for
personal injuries. Who shall say how
much an arm or a leg is worth?
And, finally, 1t is Importance that the
people as a whole should realize that the
administration of justice is part of
their work. We can not too often repeat
the statement that if popular govern
ment Is to continue, all must take an in
terest therein, and realize that upon
each one rests some share of RESPONSE
bility; and the administering of Justice
Is one of the peculiar duties Of govern
ment.