OCR Text |
Show in his own lin will often fail entirely wheu put to the test. Again, if the members of n jury do uot happen to agree with th Jaw, they will often summarily summar-ily overrule it in their verdict. In such raes a throe-fourths rule, would be ( f d.ret't dif advantage, for it would give nine noti opportunity to defeat the object of ihe, law to which j they might bu opposed, their known or supposed opposition having led to their j selection as jury men. Tho admitted weakness of some feati'res of '.hu jury sytem has led to this proposition to cluing it, but as the general public shall study t lie matter it will bo apt to graviUle) toward a remedy rem-edy that will be muro sweeping. The rb;ht of trial by jury is time honored, but th-: re is a widespread feeling that the iifOHsity for it has largely pa-sou away and that no right would ba lost by a change, to n system of trial by a bench of judges. Those who advoc.--.to this wiil m, ."t with siretiuous opposi-i opposi-i tion, but tho efforts to reform the jury method will certainly lead tho popular inin ! rn ru and m ire toward the mors radical change. Our judges ar-.1 in no ! respect like those of the old time in I Kiigland, who so often became instru-j instru-j menis of an unscrupulous sovereign. , lor th. opprtts.si.in of the common poo- 1)1-. The subservience, of the judges to the kin,' made) trial 'y jury necessary. ! ( )ur judges are sub-iervioot to no power; with very rare exceptions they enjoy the , enure coutidenee of tho people, anil I the feeling that they can bo fully trusted oven to supplant juries is ouo that constantly triow.s. TIIK Jl RV 8YS I LU. Tho committee ot the American Bar Association having charge of tho subject sub-ject of reforms in tho methods of judicial ju-dicial procedure, reported at the recet.t j mooting iu New Vcik iu favor of aban- i doning the rule of unanimity in jury ! verdicts and substituting a three- i fourths vote. Thu report was laid over j until the next meeting and the matter is tin vv being quite widely discussed in newspapers. Some journals approve and others oppose the proposition. All seem to realize that something needs remedying, 1 ut they cannot agree as to f the remedy that should be applied. j It is unreasonable to suppose that a i three fourths rule would effect any ; change for the better. The charge now is that the verdicts are often nut in ac- cord with the facts and that justice is defeated in many instances. To be sure, it it ayreod that the erroneous verdicts result from compromise i to secure unanimity, but under the ipropased rule the compromise compro-mise dodge would still be resorted needed to make up an agneing nice would be as strong as that of the one now is who holds out against eleven. There ar no doubt many instances in which more substantial justice would be secured muter a three-fourths rule; but the trouble lies so much deeper that it could not be entirely remedied by such a system. The great difficulty is that juries very often pay little attention atten-tion to the law or the evidence. They are frequently made up of men who are incapable of judging of the credibility of witnesses and who cannot go through mental process of sifting the truth out of the mass of verbiage characterizing a trial. That process requires a trained mind, aud a man who may be an expert |