Year: 1869

Trial By jury Is at least e 0iO as me time
Of King Alfred, and, With nodi6cstions,
| has been ne grsAt civil right Of the English
| snd American people until the present. time
Hume sass Of h An institutiOn admissible
| in itself and the BEG. calculated for the pre-
servation of life and the administration of
justice that ever was devised by the wit Of
man" Such, perhaps, is the almost uniform
opinion amOng enlightened statesmen and
jurists An untold amount Of paper and
ink has been spent in eulogy Of the trial by
jury, and it is one of the staples of the ora
tions of aspiring young lawyers, who Try
their wings in first fight on a Fourth Of
July.


While we have no wish to underyalue the
great importance of the trial by jury; while
we are not prepared to advocate its aban-
donment, and while we could even with
| some conditions accept the judgment of
Hume we are moved to make some eondi-
tions and to file certain exceptions to the al
most unanimouse verdict.


The conditions under which We would
agree to the general opinion are


1sT There shall be an able and fair ju-
dietary, We are happy in being able to
accord the existence of this condition, az 5
general thing, both in England and this
country. Occasionally there may be found
such judge as HENRY WARD BEEcHER
daguerrcotyped in one of his sermons, (Ser-
mons, p 142,) but they are the exceptions.
They are above corruption usually, rarely
swayed by political or partizan feeling, and
tits only occasionally that they are depend
ent on the bar for their judgment, or that
their decisions and charges reflect the opin-
| ions Of those better learned in the law than
| thehselyes. In order that trial by jury
may be what justice and law demand, the
judge must have an unprejudieed mind, and
must be so learned in the law as to be able
honestly and intelligently to instruct the
jury. 4r lf lQ4 .--5laa Z lat
3D. In cases where the State is a party
there must be eminent, fearless and honest
prosecuting officers. Wewish that wecould
in general terms accord as high position
in civilized countries to this class of officers
as to the Judiciary In our judgment, here
lie the reasons why there is that complaint
of inability to have justice done There is not
that importance attached to the qualifications
of the prosecuting officer by the court or the
people that should be. Public interest and
safety demand that lie have the talent and
| the learning of law TO enable him to bring
| his cause with such distinctness before the
| jury as to ensure the conviction of the gull
ty, or, should he fail, that it is no fault of
his. He should be so incorruptible that he
never would allow the character of the State
to be compromised by accepting fee, or al
lowing an offender to escape trial or liability
OF conviction. gaii @ TlN .


1t is to be feared that the Governor rep
resenting the State) or the people (as the
State) are not in all cases fairly dealt with
in cases where the criminal is wealthy or his
social, or partizan friends are influential. 1t
is immense damage to public morals and
defeats the whole idea and benefit of the
jury of grand inquest that great conserva-
tor of the welfare of the Commonwealth
1t is equally needful that this officer be
fearless mana man of undoubted moral
courage, who so identifies himself with the
character of the State-so stands in awe of
the solemn obligations of his oath that no
threats, no authority, no social exertion or
exclusion or party fealty, or personal wrath
can SO affect him as to cause him to fail in
one iota to press his case to conviction


where the evidence shows guilt, let the par


ty be who he may, or selected how or where
it may be. Such prosecution would great
ly aid to redeem the trial by jury from the
reproach to which it is subjected without


any fault of the institution.


BIRD. The panel must be men of intelli-
| gence We mesn of such ordinary in.elli-


gence as will give assurance that they will


clearly understand the testimony to compre-


bend the explanation the judges may give


of the law. 1t would not be too much to


demand for the sake of public justice, that


they have sufficient mental culture to analyse
and compare the testimony and to perceive


the advantages intended to be taken of them


under any form by the attorneys. Such men


are now in condition to render an honest


and just verdict. The individual or the


State would notneed to suffer injustice at the


hands of such panel. We suppose that


all this at least, was contained in the cur


rent idea of the trial by jury of twelve


men. This at least, would make the panel


responsible, having those qualifications that


are the condition of the ability to do their
duty, if so disposed. When any of these


elements are wanting, the State would be at


fault in not providing proper jury or aids


to the jury. ~ "a.' -'*