Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-05-13
Juries Now and Ten Years Ago.

That is q remarkable complaint that
Senator Rogers of Marlboro is report
ed to have made to the supreme court
about the increasing frequency of con-
victions by juries, and We are at a
loss to know whether we are to take
the senator's declaration as intended
seriously or as a grim joke.
Ten years ago" the senator is quot
ed as saying, "a man guilty under the
law of murder would sometimes be
convicted of manslaughter. and one
guilty of manslaughter might go un-
punished. But today, it is the other
extreme. Juries are moved by popular
clamOr that makes them convict where
there is no evidence to sustain the
verdict" and further he Is quoted as
declaring that the press of the state,
moved by some powerful motive. is
creating this sentiment"
Whatever change in conditions there
has been, if any, we will certainly not
attempt to deny that Senator Rogers
is correct as to what they were ten
years ago, and one of the things we are
puzzled to know, is whether he is re-
GREETING those halcyOn days. or whether
he is glad they are past. So far as
we are concerned, we unhesitatingly
say that we nope the old days are
gone. In those days the principal
consequence of crime was the expense
of fleeing the lawyers, and however sat
isfactory this condition might be to
certain kinds of lawyers, we cannot
see that it Is conducive to the secur-
ity of life and property and the well
being of society.
We are quite well aware that there
are many lawyers who esteem it a
dreadful thing to have their clients
convicted, and who for the time being
the moment-suffer as pOignantly as
their convicted clients themselves: but
as we do not understand that it is the
duty of juries to consider either law
yerS or their clients so much as the
law and the evidence, we fail to see
we fail to follow Senator Rogers in
the statement that the pendulum has
swung to the other extreme" If there
are not as many improper acquittals
now as there were ten years ago. there
are still enough to establish numerous
unpleasant exceptions against the
rule.
But after all, how can a lawyer, one
who prides himself upon the infalli-
bility of his profession, advance such
an argument as this before the very
supreme court? The Judge on the
bench is there for the purpose of see
ing that handed justice is meted
out Where a jury acquits man who
has been proved to be guilty, the judge
can do nothing; but where there is an
improper conviction 1t is not only his
right, but his duty to set it aside. The
fact that Judge Klugh did not set this
verdict aside, is to be taken as an in
dication that he thought just like the
jury, for Judge Klugh, as the whole
q
hearted, but a very merciful man.
OF course, we are not pretending to
say what the supreme court will do or
should do in this case We do not
know what it should do; but we feel
sure that it is fully competent to deal
with the matter. and that it will deal
with it purely on its merits. without
regard to popular clamor."
If there has been any improvement
in the enforcement of the law by petit
jurors. and we hope there has, we are
inclined to attribute that improvement
more to the work of parents and
gcnce-than to any other influence.