The Owyhee nugget. ([Silver City], Idaho) 1905-1984, 1909-03-05

The trial now going on in Nashville
for the killing of ex Senator Carmack
has one feature which looks almost like
a travesty on the assumed sacredness of
jury trial. 1t required more than
three weeks to select the jury, and when
that duty was completed, behold the
outcome. Four men on the jury are
absolutely illiterate, two others can
barely read the entire twelve declared
that they had read no newspaper since
not read newspaper in ten years
Much comment is being INDUCED 10 by
the eastern press over that Intelligent
jury" and it does seem strange that
such jury could be picked up in any
one county in the United States.
Aud still who knows?
We, in The United States, get our re-
verence for the fright of trial by jury"
from England. When that was estab-
lished, how many men in England could
read? Juries are supposed in trial to
judge the facts. Il is clear case that
this Tennessee jury have no theories
that they have picked up through read
ing newspapers and trashy books, to
distract their attention from the facts
as they are given on this trial The only
danger from them is that, no matter
what facts may be established, their
verdict will-unconsciously, perhaps
reflect merely the unwritten code
which very often governs in Tennessee
and other states. But would know
ledge of how to read and write, change
the verdict? Again the fact that they
have no knowledge as knowledge is es-
teamed by the world, is no proof that
they have no wisdom. When the great
war was at it's height, man who could
neither read or write, said to this writ
err: "lf you could only write what II
think, we could settle this business in
half an hour" That showed at least
that he was thinking and had his own
opinions. That awaksns another query,
What is an Intelligent" jury? What,
constitutes that array OF twelve men
which lawyers aud newspapers delight
in calling an ''ntelligent jury2" When
| juries were first made by law an inte-
grail feature in trials, the lawyers and
some of the judges understood the laws
requirements, while the juries were
mostly illiterate. Why were they
needed at all? Whv was it not left for
a judge or an assemblage of judges to
decide upon q verdict? Was it not for
the purpose of obtaining men who,
while they could not read, could not,
POSSIBLY, give their views in words, still
had that deeper knowledge of what
men are prone to do in the trials of
this life?
Have not most legislatures in this
country been controlled by this same
idea when they have decreed that the
ordinary intelligent man who reads
books, aud newspapers, and who has
read newspaper accounts of homicide,
has disqualified himself from sitting as
a juror In the trial of principle in the
tradegy?
When a man reads of homicide, he
is almost ceatain to be impressed by
the reading, but in ninety cases ont of
a hundred that impression is not fixed
opinion on his part, and, il an honest
man, would not have the weight of a
feather with him, when the actual facts
were made clear; but the law says it it
would require tOstimoney to change his
impressions, that fact would make him
incompetent to sit as juror.
Are not the laws of most states a
quassi command To pick up just such
juries as this one in Tennessee? Still
it may not be so bad When the Saw
lor selected his disciples, we suspect
that not half of them could read But
He selected them as chief agents for the
redemption of the human race.-Good-
wins Weekly.