The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-07-01

may be bad. But no good officer or GIL izen can object to or regret that the drawing of jurors from shaken box. by the judge in open court, cannot pc means of selecting his own tools or favorites for the high duty of trying causes, and that to the fullest extent trial Is the submission of the ques. tion of truth and right to disinterested triers of the facts in evidence. Tho officer is better and more serviceable the less it Is incumbent upon him to reward his strikers. or use his place for base purposes: the professional juror has thus the opportunity of devoting his idleness to better effort in other of any other person; while the litigant' his counsel and the court. Heaven knows, can more safely feel that cause will be more justly determined.
 In one other particular does the jury law of this and most all the other States contain an inconsistent element. A different number of challenges Is ac- corded to the State and the defendant, the excess going still further, If there is more than one defendant Why this preference should be shown; why per son accused should have more oppor- tunities furnished for his escape from crime than the public good should have for securing his punishment, if guilty: why there should be accorded to one or the other more than an equal show. Is past almost argument or explanation.
 - Improvements Suggested.
 "Jf at any one time in the history of this country, when the inclination showed a tendency towards too speedy or too certain conviction or harshness of punishment, such state of things appeared, manifestly. It cannot be In sisted that 1t Is now to be found any where. On the contrary, the lndlca- tions all are that every facility is af- forded in the courts by intricate plead ings and motions, by sentiment and in- diligence. by delays and special favors. al of trna m c prn icant and irrelevant rulings as to the admission or rejection of testimony. as well as by the chance of rejecting more jurors than hls share, to the criminal for relief from the penalties of crime, by making the courts his place Of refuge after injury or death has been ruthlessly and flagrantly inflicted by the guilty upon the innocent and help less. Why, then. should not the people of the State, which Is supposed to em- body the good and law respecting por- tion of It's population as well as us VI cious and law -discarding, stand In an equal attitude before It's courts? Would it not be as wise, If such policy is not to be accepted. to allow open warfare between such an assailant and the per sons threatened with attack, when. un- der prescribed conditions, each enemy, with his following. might resort to the usual warlike accompaniments of as- sault and defense, by strategem, re- treat. advance. or surrender, with terms established as to cause one to be slain without notice, when no restraint for that or other homicide Is enforced to prevent its recurrence upon someone else?
 with the addition of requiring ev- cry juror to be a householder and free holder whose interests thus call fors the maintenance of law and order a change for the better could be found in our jury law
 "In one other manner, 1t Is believed, better results could be reached in crimi-
 n1 hxrl Ia VI that. when objections are raised on the trial to the admission of testimony, the jury might be withdrawn, the testi- mony offered at length and in all forms proposed to the trial court, and the in answer to the questions and then if the rulings of the court were adverse to the defendant, exception reserved and made a part of the record. and the appellate court be required to say whether such testimony, If offered or dict many appeals would avail noth- ing; and thus the probability of ac- ouittal or second trial, when wit nesses were removed or interest lost, would be taken away.
 Appeal by the State.
 .'WouId 1t not also be prudent for the law tu Say. that, if the appellate court, after having considered such evidence thus excluded or admitted and treating 1t ds fully weighed as if of fered or excluded sA0uld upon all the record SO con, n,pletcd affirm conviction, 1t? Should an appeal In criminal case be allowed a defendant upon any thing but the evidence affecting the merits Of guilt or innocence; and should moi the state be allowed an appeal upon the same grounds as