The amendment wag rejected.
Mr. DANIEL moved to strike out "law,"
and insert " laws."
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MILLER submitted the following amend-
ment:
Strike out section two and insert :
"Sec. 2, The common law now in force
shall remain in force as heretofore until altered
by the general assembly, and the statute
laws now in force and not repugnant to this
constitution shall remain in force until they
expire or are altered by the general assem-
bly."
The amendment was rejected.
No further amendment wag offered.
THE COURTS—LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS.
The next section was read, as follows :
"Sec. 3. The several courts, except as
herein otherwise provided, shall continue
with like powers and jurisdiction, both at
law and in equity, as if this constitution had
not been adopted and until the organization
of the judicial department provided by this
constitution."
No amendment being offered, the next sec-
tion was read as follows;
''Sec. 4. The general assembly shall have
power to pass all such laws as may be neces-
sary and proper for carrying into execution
the powers vested by this constitution, in
any department or office of the government,
and the duties imposed upon them thereby."
Mr. DUVALL submitted the following amend-
ment :
"Add to the end of section the words
" provided such vested powers do not inter-
fere or conflict with those rights guaranteed
by the constitution of the United States."
The amendment was rejected.
No further amendment was offered.
Mr. TODD moved to take a recess.
The motion was rejected.
The next section was read as follows:
" Sec. 5. If on any election directed by
this constitution, any two or more candidates
shall have the highest and equal number of
votes, a new election shall be ordered, except
in cases specially otherwise provided by this
constitution."
No amendment was offered.
RIGHTS OF JURY.
The next section was read as follows :
"Sec. 6. In the trial of all criminal cases,
the jury may be the judges of law as well as
fact."
Mr. RIDGELY. I move to strike out " may"
and insert "shall." It is an error.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I shall move to strike out
that section. It a very mischievous thing,
adopted by the last convention in a moment
of hurry, and with some difficulty. It has
in my humble judgment produced mischief,
and nothing else but mischief. Under the |
construction which it has obtained, I believe
it does not materially alter, the practice of the
courts. For all time, so far as I am acquainted
with the history of the bar, in the country
from which we derive our judicial opinions
and practice, it baa been the privilege of the
court to instruct the jury in all questions of
law. It has always been considered the duty
of the jury to pay respect to that instruction.
That the jury at all times have bad the privi-
lege to bring in a general verdict, upon what
grounds they please, is equally certain, I do
not believe that it was the intention of those
who passed this provision, and I will not be-
lieve that it is the desire of this convention.
1 do not suppose it can be the wish of any
gentleman, or of the discreet portion of the
community, to disarm the court of this priv-
ilege. I have heard it claimed in the face of
the judge, in the face of statute law, read
from an act of assembly just as plain as that
two and two make four. I have heard coun-
sel in a case where excitement bad been pro-
duced from surrounding circumstances, say
to the jury that they had a right to trample
that law under their feet; that they had the
constitutional right to disregard the law, 1
remember an able argument that the reason
why they had the privilege was that in the
improved state of the world, and especially
this portion of it which we inhabit, intellec-
tual improvement had prepared the way to
submit to the jury, not only the construction
of the law, not only the interpretation of the
law, but the determination what the law
ought to be. And I have bad the discomfort
of seeing such an argument prevail, and a
verdict correspondingly rendered.
If the law be of any value; if there be
any motive to institute a system of written
law, it is that every man may have some cer-
tain standard by which his rights of prop-
erty and all his rights may be measured and
determined; some fixed, known, permanent
standard of measurement. There never was
a time according to the practice always prior
to this period, at which the jury did not ex-
ercise all the prerogatives which I think they
should claim for their own good, or the good
of those who are litigants before them, or for
the good of society at large. They have the
right, because they have the power to find
what verdict they please. Even cow the
courts set aside a verdict in a civil case, if the
court misstates the law to the jury. Or if &
jury now against a criminal, find a verdict
contrary to the law as given in the instruc-
tion of the court, the court may set aside their
verdict. This. constitutional authority is not
held as such that the court are bound to re-
spect their verdict after they have determined
the law. The language of it is simply calcu-
lated in my judgment to mislead and to do
mischief. I know of no earthly good it will
do. I never heard of a case. Our records
may be searched. There is not a judgment |
