|
it could be divisible. I believe this is his
intent anyway, so that it would read, by
striking out lines 11 and 12, and inserting
in lieu thereof, "either six or twelve, as
prescribed by law."
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that
the Chair follows you. You mean to sub-
stitute the language that you have just
suggested, in lieu of the entire amend-
ment?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Well, Mr.
Chairman, I really have two reasons.
THE CHAIRMAN: Not your reasons.
I am trying to find out what you want to
do. Are you suggesting the words that you
mentioned as a substitution only for the
first six words of the amendment or for
the entire amendment?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Only for the
first six words.
Mr. Chairman, I might point out that it
is my opinion that the amendment may be
out of order in its present form, in that
its wording does not fully state what hap-
pens. In other words, what is meant by a
verdict of not less than five-sixths ? It
seems to me it should say that he should
not be adjudged guilty or shall be adjudged
guilty. It leaves me up in the air. It may
be in order, but I am confused by it.
THE CHAIRMAN: The point may be
well taken, although it is not an objection
to the amendment.
Delegate Henderson, did you follow the
point made by Delegate Johnson?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Mr. Chair-
man, it seems to me that perhaps we could
simplify this if we leave the word "twelve"
in the amendment at this time and modify
my amendment by striking out, "not less
than six," leaving in, "upon a verdict of
not less than five-sixths as prescribed by
law."
Five-sixths of twelve would be the ten
out of the twelve who could give the ver-
dict, so it seems to me that that would be
sufficient for my part.
THE CHAIRMAN: That would not meet
Delegate Johnson's point.
Delegate Johnson's point is that the last
clause of the section, with your amend-
ment in either its present or modified form,
would read as follows in the present form :
"and to have a speedy and public trial by
an impartial jury of not less than six, upon
a verdict of not less than five-sixths, as
prescribed by law."
|
In other words, the verdict of not less
than five-sixths would refer only to trial.
Your amendment is incomplete. It would
have to read something like, to have a
speedy and public trial by an impartial
jury of not less than six persons, and shall
not be adjudged guilty upon a verdict of
less than five-sixths, or some similar phrase.
Do you follow the point?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I would
accept that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Churchill
Murray.
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: May I
direct a question to Judge Henderson?
THE CHAIRMAN : State your question.
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: Would he
be willing to add whatever words are neces-
sary to exclude capital crimes?
I do not think it was ever the intent to
include capital crimes with a conviction of
five-sixths, or whatever proportion he pro-
poses. I know that the British have not
clone this.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I would
have no objection to that, except that I
think it can safely be left to the legisla-
ture. This does leave it to the legislature
to prescribe what sort of crimes. In other
words, it says, "as prescribed by law". It
leaves it to them.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson,
I do not believe that the language the
Chair suggested would be very apt to carry
out the thought either. I think that it
should require a little more careful thought
than we are able to give it at this point.
Would you be willing to pass your amend-
ment for the women in order to consider a
possible re-phrasing of it?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Very well,
agreed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objec-
tion?
Further consideration of Amendment No.
9 is passed at this time.
Delegate Henderson, I take it we could
also at the moment pass your Amend-
ments S and O, which are open.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: That is
right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegates James and
Clark, do you want to offer your amend-
|
