Year: 1874

to whom was referred the petition of Susan |
B. Anthony, have made . report in the |
case. She prayed that fine, alleged to |
have been uDjustly imposed on her by .
judgment of the Circuit Court of the United |
States for the northern district Of New |
York, for the act of voting, may be re-
mitted. The report concludes as follows:
We come to the great question in this |
case: Whether the Judge erred in with |
drawing the case from the jury. Upon this
question it would seem that the judge him
self vacillated in the trial, because he per-
mitted evidence to be gone into ON both
sides as question of fact, tending to show
whether the petitioner did or did not vote,
moving that she had no right SO to do; but
afterwards withdrew the consideration of
that evidence, upon the fact of intention or
guilty knowledge, wholly from the jury,
and ordered verdict to be entered upon
his own decision, without allowing the
question either to be argued or submitted
to the jury, or the jury to pass upon it.


There certainly can be NO graver question
affecting the rights Of citizens than this.
mon law consists in the fundamental maxim
that, before any conviction can be had for
a crime it must be passed upon by twelve
good and lawful men, the peers Of the &C.
cused; and the very oath prescribed to
jurors by the common law most distinctly
guaranteed this right to the accused. "You
shall well and truly try, and true deliver
ance make, between the king and tho pris-
oner at the bar, according tO the evidence;"
while in common law the oath prescribed in
civil cases gave right to judge to direct
the jury in the matter of law aud to direct
the verdict one way or the other a. he saw
fit, the oath being substantially as follows:
"You shall well and truly try the issue be.
tween party and party according to the law
and the evidence given You"


Whatever changes may have been made
in the practice of the States since the time
of the early amendments to the constitu-
ton, certain it is that at that time, after q
Jury had been impaneled, there was no
way that the accused could be put in
jeopardy of life or limb without his cause
being submitted to twelve men and their
unanimous verdict passing upon the fact Of
his guilt or innocence. And thiaHght your
committee deem is not one gdtly to be
sacrificed. Burke once said that the whole
English constitution and machinery Of gov
ernment-nOt quoting wOrds-were only to
put into jury box twelve honest men.
What advantage could it be to an ascused
to put twelve honest men into the Jury box,
if the Judge, without asking for their
opinion, or without their Intervention, can
order verdict of guilty to be entered up
against the accuseds ia ssl ID. Tol s
Nothing, therefore, can be of more c0nse-
quence to the citizen in trOublous times to
protect him against the exercise of usurped
or other power for oppression than the in
terventiOn Of the judgment of his peers
upon the question whether he has been
guilty of crime-an offense against the
government. And. in the Judgment of
your committee, we can not too scrupu-
| lousy guard in the interest of the liberty of
| the citizen this great and almost invaluable
right. The friends of liberty under the
| common law system have stood for it, and
stood by it strenuously and assiduously as
| the palladium of their liberties and the i'm
penetrable shield of the people from oppres.
| sion. BY the order Of the judge the de-
| fendant was deprived of this right, and if
| in this case, of minor consequence so far as
regards the punishment inflicted, this can
be done, so in the trial for murder or trea
son judge may order verdict Of the jury
without allowing them to pass upon the
| fact. 1t has been sometimes said: "Can
this be done9" We are clearly OF the opin
| ion that it can not and ought not to be
done.


1t is sometimes said as triumphant argu
ment in favor of the exercise of this power
HAS not the judge the power to order 8
verdict of acqulttal" The answer to that,
as a matter Of law, is, "Ne, he can only di
rect the jury that upon the facts and mat
ter of law he believes the case can not b.
maintained, but that it is for the jury tt
say whether they will follow that direc
ton" and his remedy is to set aside tha


verdict, and that power has always beer
exercised at common law in favor of tn,


prisoner, but he can not set aside the yer
dict of mot guilty." Sometimes, in th'


darker hours Of English Jurisprudence, th'
judges fined the jury when they were no


the acknowledgements OF their will, br


persisted in finding the defendants in State


prosecutions mot guilty" when the judg'


thought they ought to have been fount


guilty; but neither Jeffreys nor ScrOgg


ever dared to set aside verdict OF mo


guilty."


Your committee have been led by tn


great consequence of this precedent NOR


carefully and at length to give an examina


ton to this question to which it's importance


would not otherwise have entitled 1t. Blu


your committee do not find it necessary t


impute any intent of wrong to the learne'


Judge who tried the case; but the effect o


this error was to deprive this petitioner o


a great and benefcent right, guaranteed +


her as strongly as any other by the consti


tuition of her country, to have the question


of her guilt passed upon by her peers, whicl


error has had the same effect upon he
l


would have had, and may have hereafter


in bad times, wherein corrupt Judges, WELD


ing instruments of power, should shiel'


themselves by precedents set BY good judge


in good times.


Therefore, because the fine has been in


posed by q court ct the United States for q


offense triable by jury, without the sam


being submitted to the jury, and becaus


the court assumed to itself the right to II
| ;ok NIT 1o,,kc huniffinn a tho 4


the Jury, and in order that the judgment q
the House of Representatives, If it concu


with the Judgment of the committee, may


in the most signal and impressive form


mark its determination to sustain in II


Integrity the common law right of trial b


jury, your committee recommend that tn


PRAYER of the petitioner be granted. and


this end report the following bill, with re-


concentrations that it do pass.


Many people have q prejudice again'


cheap goods, which makes them avoi


stores which are noted for selling extremel


low. This prejudice doubtless originate
in some experience of loss where bargai


was expected. But prejudice is bs


guide at all times. 1t is unreasoning an


unreasonable. Like the man who woul


not eat apples because his grandfather die


of apoplexy is the man who refuses to


and purchase his goods at half price wht


he is offered the chance, because in the di


past he had been cheated in the acquir


ment of slop-shop shirt by . trsvelir


peddler. Now, Stevens & Co.. corner


St. Charles and Common streets, are Sc
ing bargains every day which astonish Il
people who 60 there. Let US have no mo
nonsense about the impossibility Of selliI