Henderson daily dispatch., 1943-02-03
OTHERS VIEWS
u 4I YRI.AI.S
10 The Editor.

10 he Editor:
WI! yuH aliJw me space III yuu:r
N"!u&hlc paper to express my 81:
II regard IL the proposed oil n.N
pending III the Legislature :ciai.v"
|" the adjustment of trial by jury
~ the lower court OF Vance county?
The Daily Dispatch. II Monday
( afternoons edition. carried Il new
icm 10 the effect that several law
TCr$ Of the local ba.. CO., .a.. !
am one. had requested a hearing on
Ms matter when the same q. ODD, H.
DE-" con liberation in the Senate com
mittrc 10 which il i referred. TGI.
: correct. and other members and
| nope To be able 20 snow The com
" ttre that this is 4 bad piece o,
legislation and should not ne Da ed
ana That 1t is contrary - the de-
S:reS and wishes of the people q. u
whole in this county l. is stated
That The bill has already passed in
The House of Repre- entativc>. bu,
this N no way passes O" the mcri,
81 'nr bill. The bill. OF course.
when referred TO the committee. of
winch lis author WAS chairman. had
!itiIc opposition. but the Senate com
mite" may take different view
q; il.
Every once in awhile some brigh,
mind puts forth the idea tina, the
grand liny Is useless and should he
abolished. Another will advance the
'dca that The present system of tia!
ny Jury. in which the verdict of the
Jury must be unanimous. i all WRONG
ard that il would be better t. lc,
me decision OF the jury he by the
majority rule. Another will conceive
INC notion that we should do away
WIN The jury system entirely and
i"aNc the matter up to The majority
opinion To three Judge But all of
tH"Sc "otiorS and ideas soon fade
and go aglimmering because this old
system of trial by jury has been in
existence for hundreds of years and
stnod The test and proven 10 the
people that it is the best method of
ira! ever vet devised.
Now comes bill introduced ny
orr representative. to abolish trial
ny Jury in the mayors court and in
the recorders court. Where docs
this idea originate? Has there been
any widespread demand for this par
'Icrllar piece of legislation?
Let's take the municipal cnur, for
instance. Is the present mav0r w
favor of denying In any one the right
OF trial by jury Il he calls for il
a"d puts M his cost IN advance
for the paymcrt rs nc i required
~ law 10 do" ! think not He has
nc;cr publicly expressed himself.
He Is drawing adequate salary In
2!v" this position his und vidcd ling
I'm able lawyer is prosecutor IN the
mFniC.pal court and i: drawing
good salary for the TING spent in
his duties. Is he in favor of taking
1"a" from ono vino Is g. have hi
rights decided upon his rCurc,- o.
a trial by jury? think not. He
has never expires cd himself. We
have an experienced Judge of the
recorders court who is fully cap
aalc Of charging n jury. I cannot
'"licve he is IN favor Of passing u
'aW which will deny 10 the pcoDlc
md especially those Of moderate
means. the privilege o! having their
rights passed on by jury Of their
peers.
The verdicts in some cases tried
in our lower courts have been sub
iect Of criticism. it's true. Usually
by those who were not present n
the trial. and who knew little of
The real facts. think the iuric> IF
this county will stack up fayorablv
with those of any other courtv in
The state. in honesty and in intel