Year: 1879

tN

 We believe it is now pretty gcner- ally conceded that some changes might be made In our present jury system which would work benef- cially both in attaining the ends of justice and in saving the enormous expenses incurred under the present system.

 The Memphis Appeal of recent, date called the attention of the Ten nessee Legislature to this matter. and used the following arguments in sustaining its position. We endorse what the Appeal says, and think it is matter which should be agitated and considered by the people.

 Says the Appeal:

 In this country the jury system is fast becoming tue facile instrument by which the ends of justice are thwarted. As juries are now select. ed, the law enables shrewd lawyers to secure a set of professional imbe- ciies, who shall be as wax in their hands. Service upon juries is so irksome and troublesome that 1t is always cvadcd if possible, and the law provides the easiest possible mode of evasion. A man is exclud- ed because of his intelligence. Ii he reads newspaper, as all men do who are capable of serving on juries. and forms an opinion crude and sub ject to modification by the facts and further evidence he is pronounced incompetent, and the illiterate igno- ramus incapable of reading, or form ing an opinion after reading, is acI cepted as a marvellous proper man to make model juror! In an age and in community where newspapers like the Appeal are widely circulated, bringing information on all subjects of popular interest. the absence of some opinion on notorious murder or event of the day should, of itself, mark man as not possessing the requisite mental competence and in telligence to judge of matters of grave importance. It is preposter- ous to expect the jury system, thus hampered, will protect society. It is q miserable farce to pick out hap. hazard Q dozen men who have to confess that they never read before they can be made competent jurors to sit in judgment upon life, liberty and property. The fact that the practice is one that has descended to us with the sanction of our ancestors avails nothing in it's favor. A sim gle juror can prevent the most dan gerous and lawless villain from be coming convicted, and bad men on a grand jury can prevent the most in famous maletactor from being indict- ed and tried. What a power is this to place in the hands of such men as are ground out by the jury mills of the present day. Verdicts have been rendered in this country which have been mockery of justice. To get rid of professional jurors men should be made ineligible for a speci- fled time after a service of one term, and'the majority of the jury should render Q verdict. When Andrew Johnson. as president of the United States, was tried by the high court of impeachment, 1t required only a two.thirds vote of his jurors to con wet and remove him from the office to which he had been elected by the votes of millions of men. But in our courts of justice it requires tire unanimous vote of twelve men to con viet a gambler, a thief, or a muid der CT. The President aof the United States can be convicted and removed from office by Il vote of two-thirds, but It requires the unanimous decis' ion of the inry to convict the corrupt occupant of petty office. The unanimous feature of our jury sys, tenn should be substituted by some thing more in conformity with req son, the changed character of the times and the genius of our demo cratic form of government which recognizes the right of the majority to rule. The very ground work on which was established the jury sys. tenn, requiring the unanimous decis- sion of twelve jurors for conviction, has been entirely swept away. The superstructure stands tottering with out any foundation whatever to rest upon, much less the solid rock upon which it. was first erected.

 Money goes farther than popular