Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1922-10-10
WOMEN AS JURORS
Judge Cothran Frames up Notification
Constitutional Amendment.

Why is it that the women of South
Carolina, although they have the right
to vote and hold office, cannot serve as
jurors?
In an Illuminating opinion from the
pen of Associate Justice Thomas P,
Cothran, the Supreme Court of South
Carolina lately answered that question
in the case of the State against Edward
n. Mittle, formerly Of this city.
When MittIe was put on trial in
| Orangeburg county on the charge of
numbering J. II. Patterson, his counsel,
among whom were former Gov. Cole
l.. Blease and congressman Ed. c.
! Mann, moved to quash the whole
venire of petit jurors on the ground
that the jury commissioners deliberate
| ly failed and refused to select any
women for jury duty, although there
were many women in the county quail
| fled for jury service, but selected only
men. This procedure, Mittle contend
cd, was contrary to his rights under
the constitutions Of South Carolina
and the United States. Circuit Judge
II. w. Bowman, who presided, refused
to quash the venire, and the trial went
on, resulting in the conviction OF
Mittle of manslaughter. Whereupon
he appealed to the Supreme Court OF
South Carolina for new trial, one of
! his grouLds being that Judge Bowman
committed error in not quashing the
yenirc because no women had been
drawn on it.
/ !u delivering the opinion Of the
higher court, Mr.. Justice Cothran
points out that Mittle's contention that
women as well as men, rests upon two
propositions: a. That the Nineteenth
Amendment to the Federal Constitu-
ton confcrs upon women the right Of
suffrage; and 90 that the right or
privilege Of, or amenability to, jury
service, is implied in the constitutional
grant of the right Of suffrage.
Neither of these propositions can be
sustained" declares Mr.. Justice Goth
ran. He sets forth the Nineteenth
Amendment, usually known as the
woman suffrage amendment" which
is: The right of citizens Of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by
any state on account of sex" Then he
fn tot hn lUJ
Carolina.
"It is a popular, but a mistaken,
conception that the amendment con-
fers upon women the right to vote. 1t
does not purport to do so. 1t only
prohibits discrimination against them
.)l account of their sex in legislation
prescribing the qualifications of suf-
frage, very different thing from con-
ferring the right to vote, which is left
to legislative enactment, restrained
only by the inhibition against the
prescribed discrimination.
"The Nineteenth Amendment is in
the precise terms of the Fifteenth,
with the substitution of the word
sex for the words race, color or
previous condition of servitude.' 1t has
1sen repeatedly held by the Supreme
Court of the United States that the
Amendment does not confer
upon coiored men the right Of suf-
frage; it only forbids discrimination.
The Nineteenth Amendment must, of
course, receive the same construction.
If, therefore, the privilege of jury SER
vice can be implied from the right Of
suffrage, which we deny, it could not
be claimed as a constitutional right
unless the right from which it is de-
rived is conferred by the constitution.
Can it be said that the right to
jury service is implied from the grant
of the right of suffrage, assuming that
the effect of the amendment is to con-
fer that right?
"The right to vote and eligibility to
jury service as subjects of such di-
verse characteristics and demanding
such different regulations that it Is
to consider the one as i'm
piled in the other. To hold that one
who is a qualified elector is ipso facto
entitled to jury service is to deprive
the legislature of the right to prescribe
age limit, the sex, or the mental,
any other limitation upon the right to
jury service. 1t could not prescribe the
moral, or physical qualifications of a
juror, matters which appeal so strong
ly to the Judgment, in prescribing the
fitness for their responsible duty, with
due regard to the sensibilities and de-
licacy of feeling of those involved"
After citing decisions Of the highest
of some other states sustain
ing this position, Mr. Justice Cothran
observes that the defendant had no
right to raise the question of the eXclu- |
sion OF women from the jury lists,
since he does not belong to the eXclud- |
ed class. Furthermore, the right to
jury service by women is expressly |
denied by the constitution of South |
Carolina: The petit jury Of the cir |
cult courts shall consists of II men,"
Just now most of the women Of |
South Carolina are not desirous of !
serving as Jurors and, consequently, |