The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-08-06
THE HrAI ISSUE.

or discussion of legal technicaiities. Ev- cry school boy knows that Juries are the trisrs of the facts. Everybody knows that jury has the physical and legal power. though not the right, to trampie down all law and evidence, and refuse to convict, or to acquit. the suiltiest man on earth. if they be 50 minded. Possession of the power does not touch in the least their right to do SO, or the propriety of judges holding up 3uries to reprobation. when they plainly betray their trust. There Is not man of middle age who has attended our courts. who does not re- member hearing judges pnsparingiy de- nounce Juriss. who have prostituted their functions to shield the guilty. Only yes terday. we read in The New York Sun where Judge Con In discharging a jury, scored them roundiy for their conduct. and stated that the most charitable view he could take of thelr conduct was that they were set of lunatics, who should be in the asylum"
 Nobody. whether lawyer or iayman, can doubt the right of the judge. in proper case. to call juries to account for wilful and deliberate refusal to do their duty. Such admonition on the part of the judge is In the interest of the. purity of jury trial. and is one of the safeguards of the right of trial by jury. The real issue. then, and the only one Mir. Hefiin can make. as to the Turner case, Is whether or not the conduct of half of the jury, warranted the strictures passed upon their conduct by Judge Jones, when, af- ter the case was submitted to them. they came into court and stated the reasons for disagreement. If their conduct justi- fled such strictures, the judges conduct was praiseworthy, and ought to be conn mended. If it did not, the Judge was rep rehensibie, and ought to be impeached. There can be no denial that this is the scope of the issue, and that right so- 3ntion depends solely upon the facts of the partlcuiar case.
 What are the undisputed facts? Turn CT was the owner of farm. He was County hard labor contractor. and worked convicts Three young negroes. Helms among them, were fined about $6 each at Goodwater, but not sentenced. and then carried by constable to Dadeyille to be sold. The constable who took ...ese men to Dadevilie. testified that he delivered them to Turner for so cash. Turner's check given for this amount was intro- duced in evidence, and It's genuineness and payment proved, and admitted. Puri- foy, Birmingham banker. who went along with the constable. also proved that these negroes were carried by the consta- ble to Dadeville. Two of the negroes themselves testified to the same facts. Mr. White. a reputable white citizen of Columbus. Ga. testified that he went to Turner's farm to see about the negroes, and Turner admitted that he had them and was working them. under the bar l gain made with Dunbar. Turner demand ed and received s4S from White, before Helms was surrendered to him. Judge Cozart. highly respected attorney of l Columbus. also visited Turner at the in- stance of the parents of the other two boys. and paid Turner s25 in cash for one of them and $Sb in cash for the other. up- on which payment Turner released them. The proof was undisputed that Turner | worked these three negroes as convicts for about two and half months. before they were bought out by their parents
 Turner did not take the stand, though he had a right to make an explanation under oath, as a witness, if ..e desired. He Introduced a negro named Parker, who testiHed about the negroes who were sold by Dunbar for $4O to Turner. and that they stated they preferred to go to Turn ar,a iyataad aR tr Eaaas@ 4a~ua .uS ..a..5 Turner to take them. The whipping and beating of Helms was not denied by any I of the witnesses. Turner claimed that he was not responsible for what the guards did without his knowledge. Turner's law yers did not dispute the facts. They ad- mitted them, and insisted upon their truth, urging that the contracts were voluntary. and hence that Turner was not guilty under the peonage law. of hold ing these negroes to forced service, to pay back money he had paid out for them. It was not open to question or doubt upon the evidence, which was Ln- disputed both on the part of. Turner and the government. that Turner bought the three negroes for s4O held them by force on his convict farm, worked them there until bought back by their parents, and released them only upon being paid $1O6 in cash, after he had the benefit of their labor for about two and a half months
 The court in submitting the case. fully { explained to the jury the different func- tions of judge and jury. and that 1t was for them. where the facts were in dispute. or the inferences were doubtful, to find what the evidence proved; but when the facts were not in dispute, or were admit ted. the effect of the evidence was a mat ter of law. upon which the jury were bound by their oaths to follow the court. It charged the jury that under the ad- mitted facts, the contract was not volun- tary. It further charged the jury if they were, satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Turner purchased Helms from Dun bar, and afterwards worked him as a convict. recaptured him when he ran away. and fosgdhdaim to work against his will. until his father paid him out, then Turner was guilty as charged. There can be no dispute that 1t was the duty of the jury under their oath, to take the law as thus declared, and hnd verdict &C., cordingly, unless the evidence left the facts in doubt
 While no one disputes that a jury may