The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1903-12-26
U JURY SYSTEM.


opinion that relief from the evilso
the present jury system will neve!
be secured until juries are abolieheo
altogether. 1t favors the trials o
cases in which questions Of fact ART
involved, by three judges instead
of by juries. The discussion of this
question is free to everyone, anc
few people are satisfied with the
present system. But at the same
time the discussion is more philos.
optical than practical. The jury
system is so thoroughly embodied
in all the constitutions of civilized
states that it will take years to get
1t out, however much it might be
desired.
So far as Judge Cowan scored
the jurors in the Barry murder case
for failing to agree at Langdon he
is open to criticism. His scoring
because they disregerded his in
%structions and brought in a futile
verdict of guilty and seven years
imprisonment, when he told them
that ten years was the minimum,
was justified. Then they went out
again and finally failed to agree.
A Judge is often tempted to criti-
else a jury for acquitting a guilty
man, but to score them for not
agreeing in a case where there are
so many questions involved as in
the Barry case is different If we
consider that there are about It's
different religious scots in this
country, and in each sect there are
many men who believe thoroughly
they are right, and the other liza
are wrong, it is no wonder juries
fail to agree. Some thought Barry
was insane when he committed the
homicide with which he is charged;
and others thought it was largely
j%usti6able anyhow considering the
circumstances of the case, and that
poor Barry, broken in health, his
property gone, having spent many
months in Jail, had been punished
enough up to date.
One sometime wonders that juries
agree as often as they do. Greati is
the power of compromise, and ju-
rors compromise in criminal and
civil cases as men do in politics,
business and society. Many suit
for money is settled by the jury as
a compromise. Odd cents in YER
diets are often accounted for by
the jurors putting down on a piece
of paper each man what he thinks
is right, adding them up and d.
viding the result by twelve. In
criminal cases, it is notorious that
verdicts are frequently arrived at
by compromise, and there seems
to be no other way of doing it. If
three judges had to decide the cases
there might be similar practices
in close cases. 1t is very easy to
imagine a criminal case in which
the evidence would be so evenly
balanced that it would be extremely
hard to decide whether the defend
ant has been proved guilty beyond
all reasonable doubt. Civil cases
frequently arise where men of the
highest intelligence and training
fail to agree as to the rights of
plaintiffs to recover. Many such
cases are decided by courts without
and on review by higher
courts the decisions are reversed,
just because judges of higher in
tclligence and learning have diff
fered in the same way the jurors
in the Barry case differed. And the
higher courts have the last guess,
and plenty of time to do the guess
ing.
In some countries PROFESSIONAL
have been called upon in
the courts to pass upon questions
of fact that arose between litjgants
It is customary in these days to
upon the professional juror,
and the sheriff, when he goes out
for talesmen, is urged to 90 by
those who are waiting to be called
on juries. And yet one sometimes
wonders whether the professional
juror system would not be better
than the present one, if men could