The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-08-06
J. THOMAS HEFLIN IN
 REPLY TO CRITICISMS
Says The Advertiser Has Been Unfair in Its Con- ments on the Luverne Episode.
 Gives His Position.

l, say other than that Judge Jones tran scended his authority when he used this language to the jury; nay. more, that he unJustly assaulted men who were help less in his power. Is 1t not obvious that less courageous men would have been ab- soIutely intimidated into finding a verdict | to his liking? Is 1t possible that such harangues as this would not tend to in- timidate subsequent iuries engaged In I similar cases or the same case?
 In It's effort to sustain Judge Jones in the Turner case. The Advertiser. tor it's attorney cited the case of Sparf and Henderson vs. United States. 15s U. S Supreme Court reports. This authority clearly supports my position. Quoting from Greenleaf on Evidence. the United States Supreme Court in that case said: Whether there be any evidence or not is a question for the judge; whether 1t Is sufficient evidence. Is a question for the jury" Again. speaking of the jury, the court in the same case said: They will apply that law to the facts and will find verdict of guilty or not guilty as their own consciences may direct" The lower court was sustained in declar- ing Tt is not my purpose, nor is 1t my function, to assume any fact to be prov en. not to suggest to you that 1t has been proven" Again. the court, quoting from an English authority, said: Tt Is of the greatest consequence to the law of Eng land and to the subject. that these pow CTS of the judge and the jury are kept distinct; that the judge determine the law and the jury determine the facts, and if ever they become confounded, 1t will prove the confusion and destruction of the law of England" Again, refer ring to the juror: Being sworn to try the issues, he must find his verdict upon his own conscience" Again. the same authority says: "The jurors were the sole judges as to the credibility of wit nesses." It will thus be seen. that. sum ming up the whole case, the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States cited by The Advertiser, sustains my position absolutely. No instructions were given in the case cited that questioned the right of the jury to determine wheth- CT the witnesses were to be believed or not, nor whether the defendant was gull ty of the offense charged. On the con- trary the court was careful to say that they were to determine-applying to the facts, the principles of law announced by the court-whether the evidence es- tablished the guilt or innocence of the defendants of the charge set out in the indictment. The trial was thus conducted upon the theory that it was the duty of the court to expound the law and
 
 thus declared. to the facts ascertained by them.
 'Tn this separation of the functions of court and jury is found the chief value as well as the safety of the jury sys- tenn. Those functions cannot be disre- garded or confounded without endanger- ing the stability of public justice, as we'll as the security of private and per sonal rights"
 {a oyytd hot Axor tt~ attorney. did not read all of the opinion relied upon by 1t.
 I am pleading for the rights of a sys- tenn by which and through which the constitution directs the punishment of crime. It were infinitely better for nine- ty-nine guilty persons to go free than for one judge to offend against the consti- tutional rights of the jury. or preju- dice the case of the humblest citizen to whom the constitution guarantees a fair and impartial trial by e jury of his peers. No judge has the right to shackle the conscience of juror or take his mind prisoner and mould 1t to lils way of think ing. The juror is the creature of the law and Is directed by the law to perform the functions of his ofice, and when the judge invades the province of the jury he is trampling the law under his feet and subjects himself to the righteous in- dignation and criticism of the people. The authorities hold that when the juror accepts the law from the court, he is ab solutely independent of the judge, and the judges conviction as to the guilt or Innocence of the accused Is a subject that does not and should not influence the juror in his search after a true yer dict.
 The juror is selected from the body of sovereign citizens. He is clothed with the majesty. power and dignity of the law. He is the sole judge as to the credibility of witnesses, and is directed by the law, and obligated by a sacred oath. to find a verdict according to his own conviction and conscience. Then when he exercises the functions of his office, performs his duty as he sees it, and fails to agree with the other mem bers of the jury, no judge has the right to brand him as a perJurer and stamp him as a disgraced man in the eyes of his fellows.
 The law is over all It is the rock of our refuge in civic affairs. And the law presumed Turner innocent until he was convicted by jury of his peers.
 Has Alabama become the disciple of a new faith? Has she been baptized into the idea that the Federal Government has a monopoly of all the rights and dig mites which were formerly shared by the sove .eign State. And has all this change been wrought through the appointment of a Democrat by a Republican President to a place on the Federal bench? Is free speech to be suppressed and the jury as- saulted. If so, 1t is time that some Aaron should stretch forth the healing rod'' and give the land deIiverance. These insti- tutions, through which all the blessing of liberty came to us, were wrought through human sacrifice and heroic suffering, and we .owe 1t to an immortal ancestry, to ourselves. and to posterity, to guard with intrepid vigilance their sacred life and honor.
 I said in my Luverne speech. ''The Federal constitution guarantees to every citizen the right of trial by jury. and this Is one of the dearest rights vouchsafed unto the American citizen. It is one of the brightest jewels that graces the fa- brio of our civic system. A fair and im- partial trial by jury of ones peers, free from hampering influences and the frowns of intimidation, is blessed thing in this lana of liberty"
 Would you call Turner's fair and im- partial trial?
 Again I said. "The judge delivered what I consider to be a charge wholly uncalled for and out of place, and it tended, In my judgment, to intimidate rather than to en- tighten, to trespass on the domain of the jury. and to usurp it's functions. The jurors were the judges of the facts. It was their province to determine from fhe evIdAaca fhe rIiiIf ar fnnOcanca aF fha