The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-01-22
THE JURY SYSTEM.
Reasons Why the Present Method
should Not be Changed.

Mr.. c. E. Field. general solicitor of the
c., l. & L. Railway Company. has written
to a railroad lawyer of Indianapolis in re-
lation to the bill which proposes to change
the jury system in such a way that nine
jurors may return a verdict In the course
of his letter Judge Field says:
L have no personal or official interest
in the question of whether nine jurors
shall be allowed to return verdict, as
proposed in the Senate bill No. 2 | am
however, firm believer in adhering to
settled settle questions of practice that have
stood the test in substantially all the
States since their organization. 1t is idle
talk to make the innovation proposed, on
the ground that Ii will defeat the purposes
OF corrupt jurors. Juries, in my experience
and observation for overy thirty-five years.
are just as honest as the courts, and have
no patience with the idea that they are
approached corruptly. Juries make mis-
takes, but reputable courts also make mis-
takes. The office of the jury is to decide
the truth OF the cause in dispute. Some
times the task is an easy one. but oftener
lected ii necessarily follows that some are
largely controlled by their sympath ies.
others by their prejudices, others weak
and inexperienced men casting about for
strong man to follow. and as rule only
rev men on each panel are strong, ca
pable and experienced men, comprehending
the force and scope of the evidence and
invariably turns out that this latter class
constitutes the minority leaders of every
jury 1t is wise provision. therefore, of
the law, as experience has shown. that the
united opinion Is the best result that can
be obtained under a jury system Every
lawyer OF large experience must give assent
TO the proposition that the minority lead
ers as a rule. are the strong just and
fearless men of the panel.
"A case comes TO my mind which best H.
lustrates the Importance of united YER
dict. A farmer of sterling worth and bust
ness capacity, but with little education.
accumulated in the northern part of the
State a nice fortune. He devised the great
er part OF his property to favorite broth
er. His will was contested, and the ques-
ton was one OF mental capacity to make
the WILL The jury was out nearly forty
eight hours before reaching a verdict The
night was opened in the juryroom by eleven
jurors voting to break the will. The one
man wanting to sustain the will was a
weil-educated, honest and experienced bust
ness man, who now occupies an honored
seat In the present Legislature. After
forty-eight hours siege he convinced the
eleven jurors that the devisor was as sound
as he ever was in his life when he made
the will, and verdict was returned ac-
cordingiy. He was the one man who under
stood the evidence and comprehended the
instructions of the court, and. as the jury
system Is now administered, he was able.
by his superior knowledge, sense Of right
and fearless disposition to make il pos
sible to protect the right of honest. ca
property
| In his own way. 1t is pertinent to ask,
| therefore, how long would that jury have
remained out If nine of them could have
returned a valid verdict?
In my judgment the proposed bill. il
| enacted into law, would only soon bring
regret to its supporters and will work man.
| ifest hardship TO litigants. 1t is no arsri-
| ment to my mind. to say that the Supreme
and Appellate courts rule by a Majority.
| These courts are Of final resort and deal
| with legal questions only. They are made
| up of trained lawyers of great experience
| and eminent fairness. and of necessity a
| final decision must be made, right or wrong
III the bill becomes law / do not see how
| 1t will affect railroads more than any
| other class of litigants. Railroad lawyers
very seldom depend on Juries to win their
| cases. Their sympathies for the unfortunate
are so strong that. as a general PROPOSE
| ton, they are impelied TO return verdicts
| against corporations. If corporations win
| they must do so on the law of the case. or
| they cannot win at all. and where there
are disputed questions of fact on controlling
| issues I'm a case. a little diplomacy and
| some cash Is better than either court or
| jury.
1t would seem, when so radical a change
| is proposed, that the opinion of the State
| Bar Association should be had. and whether
| for or against the change its opinion would
| have influence with the Legislature"