The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-08-06

Jones or Spear; whether he lives in Ala bama or in Ohio My contention is that no judge has the right, legal or moral, to coerce a jury into finding a verdict to his liking; that the jurors are the sole judges of the facts, and they must find the yer. diet according to their own conviction and conscience; that they are entitled to protection from insults and abuse of the presiding judge. We cannot be too stren- uous in our efforts to guard the dignity and integrity of the jury system of our country. The time to treat a cancer Is in it's incipiency. The tendency of medical l science Is toward preventive measures. Ii we would keep the body polite healthful and pure we must destroy the germs of disease as soon as we discover them and apply the remedy before the system is weakened and impaired. Hence l say the trespass by the judge upon the domain of the jury, the invasion by him of the jurys province, should be speedily con- demned, even though 1t be done by an humble citizen. Eternal vigilance Is the price of liberty" Is a maxim containing as much truth today as it contained when utterly by an eminent philosopher ages ago.
 Friendly to Judge Jones.
 When Ex-Governor Thomas c. Jones was appointed federal judge l either wired or wrote him congratulations. applaud him in using all fair means to enforce the law. 1 do not yield to him or any other man a greater disposition than 1 have to give to every citizen of this state, "equal and exact justice" re- gardIess of his color or previous condi- tion. It was only when, according to my honest convictions. he had invaded the sacred province of the jury, had used i language of denunciation and intimida- ton that no judicial authority on earth could warrant, and had set a precedent fraught with the gravest danger to that ancient institution-that great bulwarl of the peoples rights and liberties-the
 right of trial by jury" that l exer- cised the right that is mine as an Amer iean citizen to criticize his official con duct, and to speak publicly my views concerning this most remarkable occur renee in Alabama-nay, this unprecedent- ed occurrence in the annals of jurispru- dence in this country In doing so. l de- tended from unwarranted attack and abuse a jury that had been legally con stituted the final tribunal to decide the issue of fact between the government of the United States and one of it's citizens. This jury was a part and parcel of our great judicial system, and entitled to all the respect and consideration that the judge himself was entitled to. A judge has no more right to insult the juror than the juror has to insult the judge
 As to the Jury.
 1 It was on Saturday when the jury, In the discharge of a sworn duty returned from the jury room to inquire of the court the full legal significance of the words intentional" Knowingly" and ''Wilfully," which were in the indictment under consideration. This was not, as some papers assert, when the jury were being finally discharged, but pending the consideration of the case. In reply to their respectful inquiry the judge told them, among other things: "That it was not in his power to punish them for con- tempt, but If they did not find the de- fendant guilty, they would stand per- jured in the eyes of God and dishonored in the sight of men" I lay down the proposition that there is not a reputable lawyer in the state of Alabama who will say other than that Judge Jones trans cended 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 absolutely intimidated into finding a yer dict to his liking? Is 1t possible that such harangues as this would not tend to intimidate subsequent juries engaged in similar cases or the same case?
 GreenIeaf in Evidence.
 In it's effort to sustain Judge Jones in the Turner case, the Advertiser Cor it's attorney) cited the case of Sparf and Handsen vs. United States, 156 U. s. su- preme 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 it
 is sufficient evidence Is a question for the jury.' Again, speaking of the jury, i the court in the same case said: "They will apply that law to the facts and will l find a verdict of guilty or not guilty as their own consciences may direct" The lower court was sustained in declaring 1 '1t is not my purpose, nor Is 1t my func- tion to assume any fact to be proven, nor to suggest to you that 1t has been l proven" Again, the court, quoting from l an English authority, said: "It Is of the greatest consequence to the law of Eng land and to the subject, that these pow i 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 It | will prove the confusion and destruction of the law of England" Again, referring to the juror; Being sworn to try the issues, he must find his verdict upon his own conscience" Again. the same au- l thority says: "The jurors were the sole 1 judges as to the credibllty of witnesse. | It will thus be seen that summing up the whole case, the opinion of the Supreme court of the United States cited by the 1 Advertiser sustains my position abso- lutey. No instructions were given in the case cited that questioned the right of the jury to determine whether the wit nesse were to be believed or not, nor whether the defendant was guilty of the offense charged On the contrary, the court was careful to say that the jury were the exclusive judges of the facts, and that they were to determine. apply ing to the facts the principles Of law announced by the court, whether the ev- idence established the guilt or innocence of the defendants of the charge set out in l the indictment. The trial was thus con 1 ducted upon the theory that 1t was the 1 duty of the court to expound the law, and that of the jury to apply the law, as | thus declared, to the facts as ascertained by them.
 Tn this separation of the functions of court and jury Is found the chief value as well the safety of the jury system. Those functions cannot be disregarded or l confounded without endangering the sta l bility of public justice, as well as the se- curity of private and personal rights"