Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1913-10-24

| nave T6du Will great lultISSt tnc
splendid editorial in your issue of yes
terday's date, entitled THE Jury Sys-
tenn Of Georgia on Trial" To your
ma sterlv presentation OF the occasion
and reasons for your editorial utter
ance at this time I could not hope to
add. In the concluding sentence of
that editorial you invite suggestions
from your readers as to the proper
method Of Safeguarding jurors in the
future" such as will make "the jury
system Of our State so strong that 1t
will not break down anywhere"
System Is Simple.
shall not presume to enter upon
the discussion of the jury system as 1t
relates to or it's Integrity Is called In
question in the particular case to
which YOU refer 1t is presumed that
the courts win so deal with that mat
ter that no odium can attach to our
Jury system because of any revela-
lions which may have been made In
that case.
However, such revelations may re-
fleet upon the individual juror or
Jurors whose conduct is called IN
question, will, however, as an
interested reader of your editorial,
claim your indulgence and ask the
vations upon the general subject con-
cerning which you invite discussion
and suggestion.
1t is submitted that the jury sys-
tenn Of this State, as a system, is as
nearly perfect as human ingenuity
can devise. 1t possesses the merit or
extreme simplicity to start with. 1t
provides that none other save upright
and intelligent citizens shall sit upon
iuries. 1t requires and provides for
he impartial selection, by sworn jury
commissioners, of the persons whose
names shall be entered upon the jury
list.
Drawing Impartial.
1t provides a strictly impartial
method for the drawing of jurors, and
directs that they should be sum-
moned by a sworn officer of the law.
After they are thus selected they
are chosen in the given case under
system which is perfectly fair and
impartial as between the parties, and
they are even then as individual jul
rors subjected to such an examination
a $, but for the intervention of the hui
man element, assures absolutely the
selection OF only upright, intelligent
and impartial jurors TO pass upon the
issues made
submit therefore, that the sys-
en-, In and of itself, Is sufficiently
strong. If this system, In Its just
operation, fails to furnish such jury
as the law requires and such jury
as measures up to the highest stand
ard of human perfection, in my Judg-
ment, we will have to look deeper
than and beyond the system for the
causes which produce the failure.
Assuming that in the process of Sc
lection those charged with the admin
istration Of the system have failed of
their duty, the responsibility Is and
should be upon the individual officers
charged with The duty of selection.
Let us suppose, however, that there
has been no failure here, and that still
upon the Jury there appears one who
because of bias or prejudice, enters
upon the trial with fixed determine
ton, we will say, in criminal case,
either to convict or acquit the de-
PENDANT; the presence of such man
on a jury could result only from ono
of two causes-either dense ignor-
snce, almost to the point Of imbecil-
ity, or inexcusable and criminal cor
ruption.
Before being sworn in felony
case each individual juror is required
to answer, on oath, these three Ques-
lions in order to test his 1mpartiality:
First. Have you, from having seen
the crime committed, or from having
heard any Of the testimony delivered
on oath, formed and expressed an
opinion In regard to the guilt or in
nocence Of the prisoner at the bar?
When Disqualified.
II he answers Yes, he Is disquali-
fed
Second. Have you any bias or pref
udice in your mind, either for or
against the prisoner at the bar?
An affirmative answer to this ques-
ton disqualifies him.
Third. Are you perfectly impartial
between the State and the accused?
If the answer is in the negative, he
is disqualified.
I therefore submit to every candid
mind that no man can truthfully and
honestly answer these questions and
permit himself to be chosen as juror
If he has upon his MIND such bias
as amounts. to a fixed opinion in re-
gard to the guilt or innocence of the
person being tried.
1t will be observed, then, that the
fault, If any, arising from failure OF
Justice in a given case, in so far as
hat failure rests upon the finding OF
The jury, it is not to be attributed to
lie jury system, nor ought the right
OF trial by jury be subjected to in
Hjdious criticism because of the hap
uoning of such an event, but, on the
'ontrary it should be attributed to
the man upon whom the system oper-
a.cs and who is engaged in the exc
.t,ion of the duties enjoined upon him
by that system.
II is therefore that fear the defect
G which you refer lies deeper than
NE system 1t is imbedded in the
'eart and conscience of the man who
buses his right to sit on jury.
If trial by jury as an institution for
he administration of public justice
'and by the term public justice |
means justice administered in ac-
,ordance with the law IS opposed to
nat species OF private justice eXem-
piit1ed in the so-called system known
as trial by mob) shall fail OF the pur-
pose for which it was originally de-
signed, such failure must be attrib-
uted to the men by whom the law is
administered. and not TO other cause.
II men deliberately swear in as
jurors for the corrupt purpose OF
bringing about particular result, or
after being sworn In, II led by preJu-
olce they heed not the voice OF rea-
son, or IL overmastered by passion