| Show JURIES BEFORE THE BAR association THE american bar association has been struggling with the time revered jury system it has not apparently ali ai haiat st fa accomplished much it has not so eo much as fully determined its own state of mind on the question but the resolutions presented leave no room for doubt that the association was fairly unanimous in the feeling that chat the question was important and some sort of change in the present system ought to be considered at an early date upon this theory a majority of the committee having avi ng the subject in charge came forward and resolved that the american bar association recommends to the bar associations of the states the support of such legislation or constitutional amendments aa a will provide for a verdict by three fourths of the buryan civil cases 01 this was evidently for a feeler so to speak and as such it brought the bolder spirits of the committee to the front with a resolution which is well worthy of the august assembly to whom it was presented for discussion we regard the proposed change says the minority as an overthrow of the entire system jurors were never selected as experts or as men learned in law but as men competent to find and agree upon the facts and their unanimous concurrence has always been required if the unanimity principle is to be given up and sacrificed then the whole jury system should go with it if a majority is to rule in fixing the verdict let us have men of intelligence selected for the purpose learned in the law and skilled in the investigation and sifting of evi dence and their number greatly reduced in fact let the whole system be abolished if this one essential and fundamental principle is to be eliminated and a different tribunal constituted while the sentiments hereso here so forcibly expressed are presented more as a negative to the majority of the committees positive recommendation they embody the strong end of the argument and must be regarded in the light of a direct proposition to rid our judicial system outright of its jury principle the association was evidently appalled by even the naming of so violent an innovation upon this ancient institution and afraid to adopt the proposition and yet being unwilling to re eject it they gravely filed it away tor for the docket of unfinished business at the next anif annual session melon but the action of that august assembly having thus gone into print their stamp of tacit favor upon it may have almost as much effect on the public mind as its formal adoption would have hava done these conservative tactics will give it a show shiow of gravity which it would not have received from hasty approval the result will be achieved Us of arresting public attention to the sub pub eject i the fact is that juries are provi proving themselves so eminently incapable of 61 filling the purpose of their function that the people are half aar arwe 0 of the nuisance already anil would make no protest against radical changes I 1 in n the system but would probably resist its entire abolition it would be interacting interfiling inter Inte filing rating iff the agitation of this question to gee what class of men would raise t th loudest objection it is probable that the professional bamps scamps who are ehrl ing under jury decisions would be most conspicuous among the oba tors the dissatisfaction with jury triga in general has manifested sted itself go ao plainly that it is only a 8 matter of timio time when the country will be ready if it itta ift not so now to demand a change the obstacles in the way of obtain obeal in I 1 artt an intelligent well informed body kofl men for jurors are so formidable that the panel is too often madi madei up of incompetents men who do not read the public journae jour nato bod and are not acquainted with curre current events are not likely to make the best beat kind of jurors on either civil or chimu nal business and the system makes it possible for a just verdict of eleven sensible men to be nullified fled b the dogged obstinacy or cranky noaim of one objector certainly needs modify ing but the abolition of the jury altogether we do not believe would meet with the approval i of the best minds of ther the age J and W do not think it would prove of general public benefit 1 |
