The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-08-06


 work against his win, as convict. until the boys father paid sis. the price Turner demanded. for himf
 It is an insult to the intelligence cf the most ordinary mind to contend, under these circumstances, there could be any ground whatever for dsbelieving the evi- dence. or that the failure to follow the law. as given by the court on the admit ted facts, did not proceed solely from a purpose to defy the law and evidence. and turn the defendant loose in fragrant disregard of all law and evidence. There Is not man who heard or read the evil dence who doubted Turner's guilt.
 When jury turns an offender ioose. In spite of the most positive and overwhelm- ing evidence of his guilt. and are rebuked for 1t. does any serious person believe for an instant. that people who love law and liberty. and believe in justice undecided, can be persuaded by any sort of decia- nation to believe that the right of trial by jury Is violated, when judge. ia such case, tells the jury plainly that they have betrayed justice on its own aitars. and broken their oaths MT. He1in's po- sition is that the courts have nothing to do with such outrages by juries. and when the truth Is feariessly told In such a case, the sacred right of trial by jury is violated Civilized people. in all lands, on the other hand. understand that judges are only doing their duty when they de- notnce such prostitution of justice. and that the only way to preserve the objects of the right of trial by jury, is to hold up jurors who plainly betray their trust, to public condemnation. Where the people will range themselves on such an issue cannot be, and never has been a matter of doubt. Judge Jones did nothing but hts plain duty in the Turner case, The people wish to see iuries held to their duty, and they thank and applaud a judge who insists that justice shall be done without respect of persons" They are not to be fooled or misied, when jury is rebuked in a fragrant case for tramp ling down justice, by the false cry that the sacred right of trial by jury" is in- vaded.
 The Advertiser, however. thinks Judge Jones is proper subject of criticism for allowing the jury to separate constantly during this exciting trial, when there were interests which would necessarily seek to bring outside or improper infiu- ences to bear upon them. It was almost common knowledge here. and openly an- nounced upon the streets. as soon as the jury was empaneled. that there could nev- CT be a conviction. It was then ascer- tained that one of the jurors had been engaged in a like offense as Turner and that at least two others of the jury had stated before they were sworn. that they would never convict man for holding a negro in peonage. These facts are not matters of dispute. Some of the jurors have boldly averred them since the trial. Under these circumstances. under the de- cisions of the Supreme Court of the Uni tod States the judge might well have dis charged the jury without going further after this discovery, and empaneled | new jury. He did not do so. but co&tent-. ed himself with an earnest and full charge to the jury, when the case was submitted to them.
 When the Jury after deliberating all of one evening. and part of the next day, sent word to the judge that they were un- able to agree, and desired to zee the court. they were received and he went over the undlsputed evidence again, and appealed to the jury not to fall to do their duty, and reminded them that they would break their oaths if they did. It was plain to anybody that 1t was the only hope of preventing a shocking mis- carriage of justice. At the same time the court informed the jury that he had no power to fine or imprIson .Mem, if they refused to follow the law and the undisputed evidence, and if court had the power 1t would not exercise 1t; for the court felt it better to have an occasional miscarriage of justice, than for any man to have the power by physical force to compel verdict of guilt against citi- zen. This was on Saturday evening. The judge did not even keep the jury together then. but allowed them to go to their homes. and return on Monday. When they announced on that day. that they ] were still unable to reach a verdict, he discharged them. They were fully ad- vised as to their rights as jurors, and no effort was made to coerce them to do their duty, except to remind them of their oaths, and to tell them what they would do If they trampled down the plain. over whelming and undisputed evidence, and l the law applicable thereto. If there ever was a case where there was a wilfuI. in tentional and inexcusable disregard of the law and evidence by a portion of the | jury, this was one. If there ever was a case, where the jury introduced mob law into jury box, this was one.
 | When MT. Heflin argues to the people of Alabama. that judge. who rebukes such a jury, for its wanton defiance pf law and evidence, Is invading the sacred right of trial by jury, he simply insults their in telligence. Every interest which desires peace. law and order. the protection of life. liberty and property, the due admin istration of justice. and the welfare uf so- clety, stands on the side of the judge when thus assaulted. As a prominent ct- izen said to The Advertiser, after reading the Luverne speech, If the action of the jury Is not condemned, now that a poli- tician Is taking up the question on the stump, it Will not be long before every man will be insecure. The spirit which prompted the failure of the jury to do their duty will go still further. The next to find himself defenseless in the courts