Year: 1875

The frequent diSagreements OF juries in
cases where long and expensive trials have
preceded, has of late led to discussion OF
the jury system by many journals. The
greater part of the leading journals that have
considered the subject conclude that the
system is full Of defects, among which
are the requirements OF unani-
nous verdict, the ignorance that the
law requires or rather renders necessary and
the opportunities offered to Illustrate the ends
ofjustice by the bribery of the minorities of
juries.


Those who object to the present systems,
urge with much force that the requirement
that unanimous verdict be rendered, is the
single exception in our politco-social life where
the majority does not rule. Even the courts
themselves do not form an exception to the
rule of the majority. A majority of judges
settles irrevocably the most important ques-
tions OF law-questions which once settled in
a single case, decide thousands similar. A
bare majority ofth Supreme Court was only
necessary to determine the status of a race
by promulgating the Dred Scott decision,
while the assent of twelve men is required to
determine question involving twenty-five
dollars. 1t is further urged that requiring
unanimity from jury is allowing the
minority to rule. One man can defeat
eleven. It is almost like requiring a
unanimous vote for a congressman. 1. is
further held that the chances of unanimous
verdict grow less every year because the
American citizen is an independent thinker
ard at least several out Of dozen likely to be
placed upon jury, will prove eccentric and
wilful so that verdict in the most important
cases is almost always the exception.


1t Is also urged by the opponents of the
present jury system that in some states the
law makes ignorance the only essential quail
fication. This is not the case in Maine,
though in capital cases the presumption is
that men who read newspapers and form con-
clusions outside of the jury box, are not as
desirable as those whose less active minds
and consequently lesser intelligence do not
lead them TO take an intelligent interest in
that which is transpiring. The law pre-
sumes the ignorance of the juror respecting
any case upon which he is to sit. Before the
age of daily papers which set all the circum-
stances of the most important cases before
the public, ouch presumption might be well
enough, but to-day lack of knowledge is a
mark OF ignorance and stupidity; and we
may add of that degree of ignorance and stu
pidity which indicates that the man showing
it approximates too nearly to idiocy to be able
to silt testimony or rise above low prejudices.


II is further held that the present system
affords opportunities for corruption. A man
with clear case against him has only to
bribe a juror TO escape justice. In the larger
cities, it is well known that sheriffs and other
officials pack juries for personal or political
friends and if the truth were known it is to
be feared that thousands of cases of the bri-
berry or improper solicitation of one or two
jurors have worked the worst results.


This subject is an important one and soon
er or later will attract public attention. The
next Legislature of New York will consider
bill which provides that seven of the twelve
jurors may give verdict in civil actions and
nine in criminal causes.