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

ullUC Lie "1EACSSCc " IAC ~ "AG@S~
this barbarism and injustice of the common law,
a great disparity in the number of challenges was
given the prisoner. Now, though the above dis
advantages to the prisoner have been removed,
the prisoner has still twenty-three peremptory
challenges, While the State has only four, besides
his unlimited number of challenges for cause. 1t
is only necessary for the prisoner to run for one
man on the panel who is friendly to him, for, if
he can secure that man by the rejection of twenty
three others besides those stood aside for cause,
he has defeated the unanimous verdict which is
requisite for conviction."
In the Haywood trial itself, the extent to which
this privilege may be abused, was strikingly illus
trated. 1t was charged (and admitted, we believe)
that Mr.. Haywood had employed prominent men
in each community to take a census of the men
subject to jury duty, and report who were friendly
to Haywood, who hostile, who inclined to be
friendly. and who inclined to be hostile. Armed
with such Information and the immense advantage
given by the ability to reject not only every man
who openly expresses an opinion, but twenty-three
others not regarded as sufficiently friendly to the
prisoner (while the State has only four peremp-
tory challenges and the privilege of putting ten
at the foot of the paneD, it IS easy to see under
what difficulties the State labors in every crimi-
nal prosecution.
1t is not in every State, however, that the ac-
cused person and the accusing public are put on
such unequal terms. The tendency is to give de-
Tense and prosecution an equal number of chal-
lenges-"for the government" it is rightly argued,
Certainly has the same right to an impartial jury
as an accused person, and, it would seem, ought
to be possessed of equal facilities for procuring
it,"
Being somewhat interested in this matter, we
have taken the trouble to examine the statutes
of the various States as reported in an old copy
of Thompson and Merriam on Juries, from which
it appears that the number of ~peremptory chal-
lenges allowed each side in criminal cases is about
as follows-the first figure showing the number
allowed the prisoner and the second figure show
ing the number allowed the State:
Alabama, q to IA; Arkansas, 20 to 10; Califor-
MIA, 10 to 5; Colorado, Is to Is; Connecticut, 20
to 20; Delaware, 20 to none; Florida, none to 6;
Georgia, 20 to 10; Illinois, 20 to 20; Indiana, &c
to 6; Iowa, 20 to 10; Kansas, II to 6; Kentucky
20 to 5; Louisiana, u to 6; Maryland, 20 to 4
Massachusetts, 20 to %; Mississippi, II to 6; Mis-
souri,, 20 to 8; Michigan, 80 to Is; Minnesota, 2C
to Z; Nebraska, Is to 3; Nevada, 10 to/5; New
Hampshire, 20 to 2; New Jersey, 20 to 10; New
York, 80 to 80; North Carolina, % to 4; Ohio, %
to 2; Oregon, y to 6; Pennsylvania, 20 to 4
Rhode Island, each side may challenge 1 in 6
South Carolina, 20 to 2; Tennessee, IS to 10
Texas, 20 to 10; Vermont, 6 to 2; Virginia, a pane
of 16 from which defendant may strike four, Will,
the State has no right of peremptory challenge
West Virginia, a panel of 20 from which defend
ant may strike 8; Wisconsin, "a to u.
Summing up, it appears that for the country a
large two peremptory challenges we're given tn
prisoner for each one. given~the- State-that is, a
the time this copy of Thompson and Merriam wa
printed, about twenty years ago; since then tn