Year: 1869




There are some radical defects existing in
the system of trial by jury which 1t would be
well to correct in every possible manner. AT
present it may be said that greater justice, in
proportion to the crime, is obtainable before a
petty police judge than at the higher courts
dignihed by the jury system. In the former
court the Judge him elf is responsible for his
decisions and is held Tor censure or praise in
accordance with them. The same cannot be
said of the higher courts. The judge may
throw the blame of an unwarrantable decision
upon the jury, and the jury, if they wish, can
reflect it in other cases upon the judge. An
instance of this kind has lately taken place in
q murder trial before Judge Barnard, where
the jury, through apparent outside influence,
brought in verdict of guilty with recon-
mendation to mercy, forcing the judge in
reality to give the notorious criminal the SEN
tence for the crime.


Again, in the present system the law has
outgrown the ability of juries, as they are now
constituted, to understand it. The conse-
quence is they have to be instructed by the
Judge, who may, If he please, color and twist
the points in such q manner that the decision
is really made by himself, instead of by the
twelve men who are held up to the admiring
liberalism of the age as the depositaries of
justice If there be any blame attached to the
decision the judge then throws it on the jury.
When this system was originated il was when
law was little known and codes were few and
simple. There was not a vast educated class
called lawyers, such as now infest our
city courts, and who as body
are not ashamed to argue for any
thing, good or bad, for fee. Cases
were then decided by the common sense Of the
juries; but this is now impossible. Questions
involving crime and property are now left to
men of very ordinary intelligence, who, in
the labyrinth of law forms woven to blind
them by lawyers and judge, very rarely meet
the case as the originators Of the jury system
Intended. However beautiful the jury theory
may be, it is, in practice, very frequently
nothing but farce. Men of great business
pursuits cannot find time to sit on juries, nor
can it be expected that such men as Wander
bilt, Roberts, Taylor and others can throw
aside immense interests to listen to arguments
upon small cases. To improve the system
there should be class of men who are edu-
Gated as jurors, thoroughly versed in the law,
so that they cannot be deceived on law points.
They should be very well paid and have per-
manent salaries for their services. To such
men it would be unnecessary to make long
speeches; they would observe the salient
points at once. For instance, long charge,
like that lately delivered by Judge Bedford,
could be contracted to the practical and pithy
part of it in the last few sentences. The
day is passed for charges like these
Laconic and to the point should be the rule of
action in all law matters. There is an i'm
mense accumulation of law cases before the
courts, more than they can try for the next
two years, especially if half the time is con-
sumed in mutual admiration speeches. We want
less talk, quicker work, keener punishment
for crime and more justice. The whole legal
and jury system throughout the country re-
quires q thorough overhauling and reorganiza-
tion. 1t should be accommodated to modern
times.