The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1903-10-20

strictions this opportunity for the criminals g.
cape. 1t is enough, in all conscience, for the ~~s-
oner to have twelve chances to one before an IN.
biased jury-he has only to convince one j~ur7nan
of his probable innocence while the STATE r-7s-
convince twelve men of his positive guilt. I
enough, we say, for him to have twelve chances
to one before a jury without the additional power
of practically selecting that jury.
So much for the disparity between the power
of the State and the power~of the prisoner in the
selection of a jury. Not less notable IS the dis
parity between the power of the State and the
power of the prisoner in the matter Of reviewing
the action of the Juror of the judge. The
prisoner may appeal on any pretext which hap
pens to find favor with the judge; the prosecution
in North Carolina-canno appeal, no matter
how outrageous the verdict may be or how erro-
neous the judges rulings. It is a matter Of com
mon knowledge, for example, that the conduct Of
Judge PEBBLES in the Haywood case has been Sc
verely criticised. His charge was certainly an
able argument for the defense" says the Charlotte
News. His course indicates that he was for the
defense all the way through" says the Henderson
Gold Leaf. 1T is stated that rulings were made
heretofore unknown in North Carolina reports
Colonel Olds. IF popular opinion here were to
be put in print Judge PEBBLES might hold that an
entire community is in contempt of court; and
the statement that Judge PEBBLES was the strong
est lawyer for the defense in the Haywood case
is said too often to be at all fattering," says tie
Charlotte Observer. And so on. If these things
are true, the State should have the right of ap-
peal, in the interests of justice; if they are not
true, the right of the State to appeal, and its fail
ure to do so, would demonstrate their falsity. you
must take the law from the court,and not from
counsel" said Judge PEBBLES in his charge, for II
counsel err, there is no way of correcting 1t, while
if I make mistakes they may be reviewed by the
Supreme Court" But the law is that only the
errors made in favor of the State can be reviewed;
if in favor of the prisoner, no matter how fragrant
or vicious, the prosecution is helpless. And Just
so long as this remains true, just so long Will 1t
be natural for just judges to give criminals the
benefit of doubt in every mooted point, and just
so long will it be possible for unjust Judges to
abuse their high privileges in favor of prisoners
whom they wish to free. ~
Formerly in North Carolina" says Judge CLARK
in the opinion from which we have already quot
ed, "and until changed by statute, the State could
appeal from a verdict of not guilty, and should
De allowed 10 uO 50 again III LIZ - P
Justice. This is allowed in Connecticut and some
other States"
Equalize the number of challenges. Give the
State the right of appeal. These reforms ought
to be discussed in the press and on the platform
throughout North Carolina, and the next General
Assembly should put them on our statute BOOKS
It is the painful truth that our present system
encourages crime, weakens respect for law los
tiers l~ynching, and menaces the peace and Sa1e'
of our citizens. Let us still give the prisoner MS
twelve chances to one before the jury, but II 1'
public is not to lose the power of self-protectiOn