Year: 1878

ASSDEl31AOu. utlu dt GCW 11dNCu On HUG last. was chiefly remarkable for the discussion of trial by jury. One gentlemen proposed a constitutional amendment allowing nine jurors in civil cases to rendera valid verdict. Anoth. CT (Mr Watrous, of New Haven) favored the total abolition ofthe trial of civil casesto jury. Mir Seeley, of Bridgeport, endorsed the prepo- sition of Mr. WatrouS while Messrs Harrison, Wright, and Ives favored some better system of selecting jurors, and the matter was finally referred to a committee.

 The position taken by Messrs. Watrous and eeley is one that IS entitled to very serious con- sideratioH. NIT. Seeley's argument is thus terSely presented in the Palladium report:

 It was undeniable that the jury did great things for our forefathers, standing between them and tyranny, but it's use was a thing of the past. We give up the mail coach for the steam car and the sail-boat fer the steamer. Why not do the same in intellectual matters? Men were entitled to justice, and the only question was how could it best be rendered, by the court or by the jury? The position of ju- ryman was given in country towns to politi- clans, who would not be trusted with the con- mon business of their neighbors. AS to the popular prejudice against the abolition of ju- Eies as we'll as against many other proper changes he said with St. Paul, ''None of these things move me"

 Col Wright was opposed to any change of the law which requires a unanimous verdict:

 It would increase the trouble by doing away with the only conservative element in the ju- Ty. It was improper to trust the rights of propeFty-the accumulations of a ifeperhaps- and the liberty of a man to majority decision. Governmental matters ID the hands of a ma- jority had gone far enough. It was wrong for . mans rights to be Overridden because he could count but fifty noses to his opponents ffty-one- The jury system moreover must be retained for it might be that we are within twenty five years of an empire and it would be needed then.

 There can be no doubt that there is strong prejudice among lawyers of the better class, and considerable popular distrust, of the trial by jury. For certain class of civil cases it IS an extremely cumbrous, unreliable species of legal machine. On the other hand no one desires that criminal cases should be tried oth- erwise than by jury.

 The protection afforded the citizen by the jury trial in criminal cases is very obvious. It is his surest protection against persecution from holding unpopular political, religious, or social views, Among us it has put stop to the tyr amy of religious denomination over religious denomination; of political party over political party; of social caste over social caste No religious, political, or social minority that is strong enough to have representation in the jury box need fear legal persecution at the hands of the majority. Let any one who doubts the need of such protection read the abOminable record of arbitrary executions, con- fiscations, and fines, that has disgraced the ad- ministration of the law in times of high politi- cal or religious ferment in the continental countries of Europe, or in England under the Stuarts when the machinery of the jury sys- tenn was defective. The reader may further observe that it was the jury trial which, in the years following the French Revolution, saved England from Reign of Terror almost as de- structive of free political action as that of France.

 Who can doubt, too, that in our own coun- try, even in recent years, the jury system has saved us from much over-done justice. Had trial by judge been the rule during the war in- stead of trial of jury would the political minor ity have escaped legal prosecution? There was sufficient hatred of ''Copperheads" to have re- suited in a nice lot of prosecutions for treason, sedition, conspiracy, and kindred crimes of elastic definition, had not the jury system pre- vented such blunder on the part of the ma- jOrity.

 Sometimes, indeed, earnest people get good deal provoked by the apparent inefficiency of the jury system, as in the case of liquor pros cautions. Close examination, however, will invariably disclose the fact that the prevailing sentiment which prevents conviction in these cases, is rude form of protest by a pretty large body of citizens against the principle of the law sought to be enforced Provoking as the impotency of a law repudiated by juries may seem, is it symptom that the legisla- tor can afford to disregard ? Is it not better to put off convictions of MormOns, for polyga- my of liquor dealers for rum selling, till the av- craze morality has been elevated to the point where juries will convict, rather than to run the risk of that dreadful reaction which so off, ten crushes premature schemes of morality?

 We have referred te tLe criminal trial by jury at considerable length because we believe that it is more intimately connected with a certain branch at least of civil suits than law yers are apt to think. Take the matter of libel, for instance it may be the subject eith- CT of civil or of criminal prosecution. AS pro posed by Messrs, Seeley and Watrous, the in- jured party could bring the publisher before court or jury at his option. Imagine Horace Greeley brought before Democratic Judge in New York, in the hot political times between '5O and 50! or how completely the Tweed Ring could have muzzled the press of that city with suits before Barnard, or other subservient judges or what fairness the late Samuel Bowles could have expected on trial for Ii. boiling the late Jim Fisk, before the very judges Fisk ownedl Here in Connecticut, Republican editors may have said things of Senator Barnum for which they would dis like to be called to answer before judges who. maybe, owe their appointments to that great politicians influence.

 Many offences besides libel already sub ject the accused to civil as well as criminal prosecution, and there is another class of civil suits for recovery of damages by the party in- 1ured, or of penalties by common informer which could easily be so extended as to give civil courts concurrent jurisdiction with crim. inal over nearly every class of offences.

 Unquestionably, also the requirement of ar unanimous verdict is the chief protective fea ture of the jury trial. It is that which ensures the minOrity-political, religious or social against persecution by the majority. It migh easily happen that large minority might no, have four of jury of twelve and then tn, minority man on trial would be tried, in effect by his enemies.

 While we cannot but believe that every eft