Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1911-12-15

can begin, while the equity courts re-
quire both parties to tell the truth,
and the court then adjusts their diff
ferences. The Common Law also al
lows a man to do quite an amount OF
lying, provided he does it discreetly;
for it is seldom possible to convict
anyone Of perjury. This fact at one
time caused professional witnesses to
hang around the courts with straw
in one shoe for a sign that they were
for hire to testify to anything. and
they were known as STRAW" witness
es; but such marvellous advancement
has been made in the art that they
now qualify as expert" witnesses,
"alients" and Handwriting" experts"
but are still in the service of either
side for pay. The Thaw trial demon
strated the fact that there are also
doctors who can be hired to testify
as well as to give pills. The jurymen
can believe a witness or not just as
they see fit, but the judge must de-
eide according to the evidence or he
will be reversed on appeal. When lit
igants know this it is perfectly natural
that they should do their best to 'out
swear" each other, and it is not sur
prising that trials occasionally develop
into something which closely resem-
bles or at least suggests a lying match
under oath, in which the parties simply
trust to the tall swearing Of their
witnesses to win. The lawyer Of to-
day who can invest and exaggerate
most wildly is the one who is regard
ed by others as presenting his case
most ably" When he can cause a weak
and incompetent judge or an ignorant
jury to understand things his way he
wins his case. For that reason an
able lawyer will always win a case II
there is any way to win 1t, while
weak lawyer will always lose a case
If there is any way to lose it. This
shows that our courts are not courts
Of Justice but are merely courts of
law, and the suits are mainly a game
of wits between the opposing lawyers.
Previous to 1888 the courts had
such profound reverence for an oath
and relied so implicitly upon it's SOL
emnity, sanctity and certainty that a
man who owed money could avoid
paying it by swearing he did not owe
1t and empaneling a jury Of eleven
"oath-helpers" who were qualified if
they were his friends, knew all about
it (probably owed as much as he did
or more), and would swear that they
believed what he said. Such a plenti-
full crop of oaths being sown, an ample
harvest Of perjuries resulted, but the
courts persisted in the opinion that the
oath itself was sacred and infallible
in spite Of so much false testimony.
They finally got around the difficulty
to their own satisfaction by conclud-
ing that the man who did the swearing
was to blame. They then decided to
exempt from oath-helper duty all
those who were outlawed, infamous,
attainted or who said Craven" in a
fight. At later period they did not
look with favor upon the oath Of ju-
rors who had been convicted of per-
jury, forgery or conspiracy, branded,
whipped, communicated or stigma
.tized on the pillory or in the tumbrel
(manure cart).
Criminals and their lawyers are ex-
tremely anxious to exclude the civil
law idea Of certain justice and to re-
and luck in a jury trial. Therefore, a
juryman to be qualified today must
convince the court that he knows
nothing about the case, does not read
the newspapers, has neither formed
nor expressed an opinion and that his
mind is completely vacant. He is nev-
er required to show that he ever did
know anything, ever read anything or
ever formed a correct opinion about
anything. He need not be able to re-
member the evidence nor to under
stand the arguments, because the
judge will instruct him what verdict
to bring in, and will then have him
locked up for the night to keep him
sober and prevent a retrial of the
case. Self-respecting men object to-
the humiliation of being kept under
close confinement during the trial and
guarded day and night by trustworthy
CD tipstaves, while the accused is al
lowed to give bond and go home until
next morning, and a man of ordinary
intelligence usually knows how to-
keep off jury. Jury trials are made
still more of a joke by the statutes
which exempt from jury duty editors,
bankers. doctors, ministers, teachers,
lawyers, all railroad and government
officials and employees, and nearly all
others of learning, intelligence or re-
sponsibility; but there are none which
exempt tip-taking walters, porters,
cabmen and barbers dishonest ped
dlers. scavengers, professional jury
else for dense ignorance or extreme
stupidity. The courts go further, and
hold that a superior man who is eX-
empt is also prohibited from serving
on a jury. AS a result of these de-
plorable facts, there are over ten
thousand murders a year G0,662 in
1906) in the United States. and but
one and one-third per cent of con-
victions; while in Germany, which
has the civil law, there are less than
six hundred murders a year, and nine
ty-five per cent of the murderers are
convicted. If our present practice
could be exactly reversed and no men
allowed to serve on jury except those
who are now exempt by statute, the
justice of American courts might ex-
cite. not only the wonder, but also
the admiration of the civilized world.
1t was a maxim among the early