Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-02-25
SEE NO REASON
FOR SHIELDING
WOMEN JURORS
New York Suffragists and
Lawyers Scorn London
Jurist's Stand.

NEW YORK, Feb. 25.-In two recent
London divorce cases in which, for the
first time, women have served on juries,
documentary evidence was offered OF
such an important nature that the pre-
siding Justice decreed that it might be
seen and passed upon by men, but not
by the women who were finally to help
decide on the merits of the issue.
Indecent letters and obscene pictures
we're introduced IN testimony and passed
about to the male Jurors who, in turn,
gave the women Jurors more or less ex-
purgated versions of the Objectionable
exhibits
George Bernard Shaw takes the po-
sition that this method is all wrong.
In the Daily News Of london he says {:
1.-THE conclusion arrived at seems to
have been that, as all men are familiar
with 6Sominable and beastly letters and
obscene picture cards. they should ex-
anime those documents and tell innocent
women what they thought Of them.
GUILTLEss OF
REPUTED HABIT.
Now, I am a married man, in my
sixty fifth year, and I sOlemnly protest
that l am entirely guiltless Of this re-
puted male habit Of reading abominable
and beastly letters, and gloating over
Photographic letters"
why should the women jurorsf'
asks Mr.. Shaw, who also asks why Sir
Edward Marshall Hall, counsel for the
plaintiff in one Of the cases, did not
apologize to the six men on the jury as
well as to the women jurors for being
! forced to use such exhibits in presenting
his evidence.
But should a woman Juror wish to be
shielded from Objectionable testimony
nay tot ,rI~
swer a unanimous no"
Miss Helen p. Mccormick, assistant
district attorney of Kings County, says:
when women are on juries they should
hear and see all the facts, decent or In
decent. The right sort Of woman has no
morbid interest in improper letters or
pictures, and win not be touched person
ally by the contact.
Women have great moral courage, and
to protect them in this way is foolish
ness.
THE whole thing resolves itself into
question Of duty. Duty must be ful-
6lled absolutely"
HOLDS DECISION
is ABSURD.
Mrs. James Leeds Laidlaw, prominent
club member and suffragist, likewise
deems absurd the decision OF the Lon
uOu justice Wup Ha4o boNA-1'N $1,000
5ight Of women.
'Do they still think women are charges
upon the human racer" laughs Mrs.
Laidlow.
IF woman IS in a Jury she IS not
70 be excluded when any part OF the
testimony is shown. Nomqn Is NOT a
weak icllvfsh She is able to deal with
ali such matters properly
The echo Of Mr.. shaw 3 anger winch
prompted these expressions OF opinion
vas carried further by Miss Lucille Fugh
welI known young woman lawyer, who
nso deems absurd the dictum OF TIE
London magistrate.
They are aut!Quated over there. ina
fudge dosnt know what be is doing,
said Miss Pugh,
Il approve OF Mr. shaw's reouke to
/ him. He If right There Is no diner
encs mentally between men and women
The double standard OF morals and man
ners is silly. 1t doesn't even exist. Why
then, when It comes to a question OF
Jury duty. are they to be considered So
/ very d.Ferentf
The courage and endurance OF women
| are elementary, too fundamental to gel
away from. The idea that she cannot
/ bear 20 see any hing improper is too silly
TO have any place in our life today =
This reminds us OF a story told OF
! General Grant At q banquet some one
wished 20 relate an auecdote not alto
cether proper. The would be wit asked
( Are there any ladies' presentf'
Grant replied: "No, but there are some
cputlemen, ;"