The silver messenger. (Challis, Idaho) 1890-1912, 1907-06-04

each other, and to the parties litigant: have no rivals seeking to unseat
them; have neither desire nor opportunity to extend their term of public
service; their duties are those of the ordinary citizen, often performed at
a sacrifice; their remuneration is meager; they are actuated alone by a
desire to accomplish justice; they assemble to-day; perform their public
service; dispense tomorrow and disappear from the public gaze.
The trial by jury also is termed "tnal by the country !" for, in con-
temptation Of law, the jury represents the country. In civil cases, the
parties having certain fixed rights under the law, the jury only passes
upon the evidence and must take the law as the Judge states it in his
instructions; but, in criminal cases, the prosecution being one for an al
legged ofense against the country, the jury as the country itself, may con-
strue the law and acquit the accused contrary to the instruction of the
judge. Many are the cases when it becomes the duty Of the jury to do so.
Judges are not infanible in their constructions of the law, breaches of
the law often are technical or traing and not deserving of punishment;
misfortune is frequently regarded as crime; and were it not for this h-
name and wise doctrine of the law the law itself would assume the char
aeter of a fierce monster, ready to do the bidding of a malicious prosecu-
tor or an arrogant Judge,
The efficacy of the jury system in limiting the arbitrary exercise of
power so often attempted by Judges is evidenced by many instances in
both England and America
In 1870 William Penn, subsequently, the founder of the common
wealth of Pennsylvania, was tried upon the charge of mlawfuIy preach
ing, and, with others, forming an unlawful assembly in the streets of
London. He was a Quaker and as such was obnoxious to the Church of
England. The presiding judge, instlled with religious prejudice and in
fated with vain presumptions IS to judicial infalibiity viewed the
Quaker preacher as a slf-confessed lawbreaker, treated him with con-
tempt and to silence his protests ordered him to the rear of the court
room. Contrary to the instructions of the court the jury returned a YER
dict that Penn was guilty of preaching, but repeatedly and positively
refused to find him guilty of unlawfuly preaching. Finally a verdict of
each Of the jurors, one of whom, Edward BushelL, true to his sense Of
manhood, ignored the fine and was committed to prison. He was re-
leased from Imprisonment by Chief Justice Vaughn upon a writ of habeas
corpus. Since then the independence of jurors is a recognized and fixed
principle.
On July 30, 1875, John Peter zenger, editor Of the New York
Weekly Journal, was placed on trial charged with HbeLng that notorious
.despot and colonial governor of New York, William Crosby. At a pre-
hminary hearing of the case the presiding judge dsbarred Zengers ator-
.ney because he called in question the judges commission. On the trial
he refused to admit testimony to prove the truth of the alleged libel and
instructed the jury TO return a verdict of guilty The jury, exercising its
right to pass upon the law as well as upon the evidence, returned a verdict
of not guilty, which not only was hailed with enthusiasm in New York
but electrified the people of the other
colonies; and, as has been well claimed,
vas one Of he initial and effective blows $MR a7
in favor of American independence.