Year: 1871

The Jury Question = Reform De-


manded.


To the Editors of the Union and American:


The demand of the public mind for re-
form in the practice of the courts has long
been felt and discussed among the attorneys
and judges. At last this feeling is taking
hold among the people, and it is a matter
of congratulation and hope that there is a
chance of beginning radical reform at an
early day. \ bin has been introduced in
the present Legislature looking to this end,
and it is much to be gained if the objects of
this bill are carried out and followed up
until we have moulded for our people sys-
TEN commensurate with the demands OF the
public, and adapted to the march of our
civilization. This bin proposes to abolish
Jury trials, except when demanded by one
of the parties to a suit in court. This right
of trial by Jury is a Constitutional one,
and cannot be taken away from the citizen,
but he may of course waive it, or he may
demand il, as he wishes. If the provisions
of this bill are adopted, and it becomes the
law of the land, it would soon become the
practice here, as it is already in some other
States to try all civil causes before the Judge,
except where from the nature of the suit,
and the complication of the facts it becomes
proper to call for a jury. In this way
numerous causes that now crowd our
court dockets, until it almost amounts
to an impediment to justice would be
promptly and easily disposed Of-and an
enormous tax and cost, to the people and
litigants saved. The observation of every
intelligent man who watches the proceed
ings of Jury trial will testify TO the unnec-
essary delay, trouble and expense attending
it. Now the object of courts is to give
prompt and efficient justice to the rightful
claimant, and we undertake to say that this
can be attained in the majority of cases,
more promptly and efficiently by an intelli-
gent upright judge than by a jury. This is
proved every day, by the system of our
Chancery Courts, where it is seldom ever
the case that parties call for jury, and yet
they are eqally entitled to one under the
law, as in the Circuit Courts, and the facts
of a chancery cause are often more compli-
Gated than those of suit in the Circuit
Court. Then why can we not pursue the
same course in our Circuit Courts? 1t is
quicker, cheaper, more certain and more
effective than the present system of juries.
But it is contended this is an innovation
upon established usages and customs.
We answer, so is every law that
is Imade, varying the old COM
mon law, and our statute books
are perpetual example of the necessity OF
changing our laws and our customs. Shall
we be bound by the old usage and customs
when. we find the demands of civilization
and Justice seem to require new and i'm
proved systems and laws? Why, to-day
the march of events show that the practice
of the courts under the Code system, which
is being wisely adopted throughout the
civilized world, is abundant evidence of this
necessity to change old and obsolete usages.
There is no change in the principles-fOr
principles like truth are eternal and cannot
change, but what we propose is a
change in the remedies by which we may
attain truth more promptly and conclusive
ly. We hear some say, "We are welded
to the Jury system;" well, so were we once
welded to the verbiage and redundancy OF
the old common law system of pleading and
practice in the courts, and yet we have re-
iected it, and the Code system is generally
adopted for its simplicity and perspicuity
throughout the United States. | know it
is yet cherished and loved by the older
lawyers generally, who find it not
in accordance with their early train
ing, and some say, there were better
lawyers made under the old system. We
are not prepared to admit this, Until long
and equal chance of pertecting them under
the new or code system is afforded. Abil-
ity, talent, learning, are not affected by the
mere mode Of expressing and expOunGing
truth; but mind goes deeper than the eX-
ternals, and truth is evolved and talents de-
veloped more by the facility and ease with
which we discover the objects we search
for. If we can get rid of the trammels
that hamper our search for justice and
truth in our courts, we have gained greatly
in the search.


1t is eontended again, that Judges may
be corrupt and biased in their judgments.
We answer, are Circuit Judges more in
clined to be 50 than ChancellOrs? 1t is
said that we may have another Jeffreys on
the bench, and iuries are interpOsed to
check that sort OF tyranny. Theh, call for
your jury in such case. But juries are
sometimes corrupt, too; sometimes igno-
rant. Sometimes, when the artfulness and
influence of able lawyers harangue them,
they become prejudiced and give wrong YER
| diets. This we would avoid, so that the
| verdict will be in accordance with the
| truth of the case, Untainted with prejudice
or passion. No laweyr who has any regard
| for his reputation or character viii advise
| his client to bring a suit which must be
gained, if gained at all, by the amount OF
| prejudice that shrewdness or elOquence may
throw into the jury-box. And no lawyer
| will undertake to insist upon that as true
and sufficient to entitle him to a verdict
| when he addresses pure and upright judge,
| whom he knows will detect his arts, and
will not be swayed by the spell Of his ele-
| quence, unless in behalf of truth. So it
| will develop better and truer LAWYERS to
practice before judge who looks to the law
and the facts alone for bis judgments, than
to have jury, save in few cases, in which
a Jury seems proper from its nature and
character. And it is a mistaken notion that


tyranny and injustice would be praetieed by


iudges. They are men who come from the


ueoDle. and must, when their services on
/ the bench are finished, return to the people


Like other men, they are amenable 70 criti-


cism and comment for their public Oficia


acts, and though it be true that neither a


Judge nor any other public functionary


should be controlled by popular eiamor, one


way or another, save to discharge his duties