Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-05-13

ton to the resent case Of the funda-
mental rules then laid down ! is
worthy of consideration that the franz
ers of the constitution of 1874 carefully
refrained from the adoption of the
language of the constitution of 1776,
WHICH deal with the right of trial by
jury, which it provided should remain
confirmed, and in its stead dealt with
the right of a trial By jury which II
provided should remain inviolate.
In our Supreme Court, in the case of
Clayton VS.. Clark, it WIS pointed out
that: The language of that instrument
(tfe cons'.tution), In respect TO this
mode of trial, shall remain inviolate,
not that it shall be unalterable.' In
Humphrey VS.. oakley. in TREATING of
the same language, II was said: With
out laying too much stress upon verbal
definition it must not be overlooked
that the essential meaning of i~nviolate
Is freetodom from hurt, harm, defile-
ment, proclamation, etc, and hat 1t in
no sense imports immunity from all
regulation
In Line with Other States.
ouOJSCl " lhcSc COloioSl tiolio thC
doctrine illustrated by State VS.. Brown
disposes in our Judgment of the first
ground of constitutional limitations
commended for by the plaintiffs In err
ror. We are thus brought In line with
the decisions of many other States
having substantially similar constitu-
tional provisions.
Entirely apart from any of these
considerations Is the provision of the
amendments to the constitution of 1878
by which the Legislature, while ex-
pressly prohibited from passing local
or special laws for the selection and
~empaneling of jurors, is enjoined or at
least authorized to enact general laws
for such purposes.
1.-THE second contention of the plain
tiff in error is that the mention of the
Office of sheriff in the constitution Of
1874 constituted ipso facto a limitation
imposed by that instrument upo the
Legislature by force of which the Leg
islature is forever debarred from alter
ing in any essential aspect the mode In
which jurors were selected by that Of
1cial at the time Of the adoption of the
constitution.
Upon this ground. as we'll as upon
that already stated. the contention OF
counsel, carried by himself to its logi-
cal extreme. Is that the people of New
Jersey must be content forever will
precisely that kind of trial by ju,y
that was practised in New Jersey when
the Constitution was adopted This
contention would present more of nov
city than of difficulty were it not that
it is directly supposed by the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of
Virtue VS.. the ~Freeholders of Essex
county. In that case the Supreme
Court had before it on c%ertiorari the
question of the validity of a resolution
by which the board ssumed the Gus
tody of it's COMMON Jail. There being
legislative authority for such resolu-
ton the question considered and. de-
cided was the constitutionality of such
legislation. the decision being that 1t
was. unconstitutional"
Justice Garrison recited the grounds
upon which the Supreme Court decid-
ed in the Virtue case that the Legisla-
ture could not detach from the Office
Of sheriff the custody OF the COMMON
Jail and of the prisoners confined in
that institution. In showing what the
Court OF Errors regarded as the fall
lacy of the Supreme Courts reasoning,
Justice Garrison said:
What Is true of the Office of sheriff
must likewise be true of every other
office designated with a like purpose In
the same article of the Constitution, all
of which, under the doctrine stated, are
thereby placed beyond legislative con-
troll. In the class thus rendered i'm