Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1913-11-08

have read with pleasure the
article of Mr.. John L. Tlson'
which appeared in your issue OF
Tuesday, relative to our court
procedure. In the main, l agree
with him. The scope of testing
Jurors fitness should be broad
ened within limits which will be
consistent with latter day condi-
lions but never in such manner
as to clog the wheels OF our
courts and produce such delays
in securing jury to try cases as
occurred in the instances cited
by him,
In opening your columns for a
discussion of our procedure, your
action is commendable. A full
and untrammeied discussion OF
the subject by laymen, judges
and lawyers will be OF inestimable
benefit to the public. 1t will in
evitably result in the defects In
our procedure, if any there be,
being remedied.
No Criticism of Judiciary.
There has been no criticism OF
the judiciary of the State. The
Judges of both our Trial and APP
pellate Courts are recognized as
men Of ability, honesty and in
tegrity. And believe that the
Judges of Georgia meet the def
nitions of "The IDEAL Judge"
given by Judge Hill as near
ly as the standard of those
definitions can be reached by
mortal men.
The method of enforcing the
civil laws Of our State has not
been criticised.
Our Appellate Courts have not
beenscriticised for delays or other
causes.
Our Trial Judges have not been
criticised for the method in
which they conduct the trial of
cases.
But the feeble and inefficient
enforcement of our criminal laws
has been criticised. 1t is criti-
cised by all classes. 1t is critl-
cised numerically, continuously
and perhaps very justly. That
criticism has continued for sew
eral years Therefore, there must
be something somewhere that Ia
wrong with the system. There
must be some defects or def
ciences in the procedure or
method of enforcement of those
laws.
What is the duty Of fury in
a criminal case? 1t is to Rem
DER A VERDICT ACCORDING
TO THE EVIDENCE IN THE
Cause.-The evidence which goes
to the Jury from the witness
stand-not to render a verdict
to please public opinion. BUT TO
RENDER ONE BASED UPON
THE TESTIMONY AS 1T
COMES FROM THE LIPS OF
SWORN WITNESSES IN THE
CASE UNDER THE RULING
OF THE JUDGE TRYING THE
CASE.
The public is not in the court
house: does not hear the evil
dence; does not see the witnesses;
does not hear the rulings and
charge of the court-but it knows
that something is wrong and that
Justice Is often defeated.
From nine years experience as
a lawyer, from lifelong associa-
ton with the people Of Georgia
who compose the 1uries of sur
State, ii is my conviction that our
Jurors measure up to the stand
ard of their requirements as fully
as any class Of public servants In
the nation. Their standard is as
high and as fully reached in their
sphere of duty as that of the
judges in their sphere Of duty.
Old System in Vogue.
Where, then, Is the defect in
the procedure to enforce the
criminal laws OF our State? The
accusation that It is in the jury
system can not be entertained for
a moment by any fair minded,
patriotic man. 1t Is not in the
Judges. BUT TT is FOUND IN
NTHE METHOD THE STATE
PURsUEs IN ENFORCING THE
CRIMINAL LAWS. 1t is be-
cause the State does not adopt
modern, businesslike methods in
presenting its criminal prosecu-
lions to the courts and the juries.
We are now laboring under the
same system OF prosecuting Grim
inal cases which was in vogue
when our State was virtually 8
wilderness, and when judge OF
the Supreme Court was astonish
ed that there had been as many
as eight divorces granted in Geor-
Ria within twelve months time.
The system of the State being
represented in the prosecution Of
criminal cases by Solicitor Gen
eral whose duties require him to
represent the state in several
large counties OF his circuit. is not