The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1904-12-21


responsibility, and know Of no two
factors Of greater Importance in bring
ing them to realization Of that impor
tant duty, than the press and pulpit. /,
therefore, take great pleasure in COM
mending the course you are taking in
this matter. May others join you in
the good work and thus emphasize it.
I do not know that any radical
changes in the present judicial system
would have the effect desired, unless
perchance, as l have already stated, it
should receive the hearty moral support
of the public. There are a great many
who profess to believe changes necessary,
but when it comes to 4 test, they have
nothing practical to offer. Unless we
have, it is better to hold to and carry
out the present system. With that
idea in mind, offer the three following
suggestions for what they may be worth.
trusting that some good may come from
their agitation and discussion:
First. No man should be allowed to
sit upon jury, to try ILL offender, when
such juror has previously been tried for
the same or similar offense. Such a
course could not operate to the disad-
vantage of either the State or the de-
fendant, that is, taking it for granted
that both sides We're seeking an unbiased
and unprejudiced jury. 1t is true that
in some instances good jurors might be
removed-those who would do their full
duty-yetitis q precaution worth taking.
Take for instance case in which a
juror is stood aside because of beng re-
lated to either the prosecutor or the
defendant. it, no doubt, sometimes hap
pens that such all one would make all
excellent juror The question then is:
Should the rule be abolished on account
of this one instance OF a dozen such?
The answer readily suggests itself land
so it is in the other case). The rule and
not the exception should govern
Second. No prisoner should be allow
ed bail pending an appeal in case in
which such prisoner has been convicted
Of nanslaughter or of any crime of SIM
liar, equal or greater gravity. The pre-
sumption of guilt, in such q case, should
be so great as to outweigh any consid
era+: on for bail. Then too, it would
have the effect of preventing appeals
being taken that were not well founded,
inorder to gain freedom during the time
that might be gained through the Or
dinary process of appeals and such other
delays as might be created or occasioned.
Similar to the other Case just discussed,
there might arise a Case i'll which the
prisoner SO held would be innocent Or
have meritorious appeal, yet it is bet
ter that the few innocent should suffer
this temporary Gscomforture than that
the large number of guilty should go
''scot free" with no guarantee Of the
return Of his person to the proper officers
at the proper time save, perhaps, a few
thousand dollars held as forfeit. What
would such consideration be to a man
standing in danger of forfeiting his life
for the commission of some dastardly
crime?
Third. The third suggestion desire
to make is one concering the wisdom OF
which, I am not thoroughly convinced.
It has. however, that OF merit about it
which causes me to make it, 1t is this:
Reduce the number Of peremptory chal
lenges from ten for the defendant and
five for the State, in eases in which they
are allowed at present. 20 five for the
defendant and three for the State; and
in cases where only five tor the defen-
dant and three. for The State are now
allowed, reduce them to three for the
defendant and two for the State. Such
change would not be radical and it
might reduce the possibility Of jurieS
being fixed and would still leave
enough challenges to accomplish all the
good now claimed for the present num-
ber. This would in no way interfere
with the right of either side to object to
jurors for cause, nor would it yitlate
any other right now guaranteed to them
by law
You state that III ''Virginia it is pract-
ical to have the jury selected for the
trial Of murder cases from any part Of
the State, and not from the vicinage'
and inquire it such 4 plan would ''be
practical in South Carolina without an
amendment Of the State Constitution,
and would the ends Of justice be pro-
noted by it's adoption in this State?''
Not being familiar with either the law
or constitution of Virginia, to which
you refer, am not in q position to dis
cuss the question as iNtelligentlv as
would like, but do not believe that an
Amendment would be absolutely neceS-
sary. I do believe, however, that it
would be Il somewhat bungleSone piece
Of machinery, and if there was any good
accomplished by il, it would be out
weighed by its Inconvenience and added
expense The question is not SO much
where the jury comes from as it is, what
regard has the jury for their oath. 1t
is a question OF men not of location. Let
the jury come from where it may. if its
members are honorable, upright citizens.
we need have 10 fear as 70 the correct
ness Of their verdict. On the other hand.
if the jury is composed OF men who do
not regard the canctity Of their oath,
there will always exist the danger and
probability Of their being talnpered
with. To sum the whole matter up, we
must look to the upbuiiding and puri
fcation Of our citizenship, forupon them
hangs very largely the enforcement of
law. Very truly,