A Blow at º ºr
* Trial by Jury
AN EXAMINATION OF THE SPECIAL
JURY L.A.W. PASSED BY THE
NEW YORK LEGISLATURE
|N 1896
BY
BENJ. R. TUCKER
New York
BINºſ. R. TUCKER, Publisher
ººº-










-º-º-º: º ~~~~~~ -
º: dº. Boaº,
º ºzºa cº, Cae.”/
- -
A - --- -
A BLOW AT
TRIA|, |}\ ||RY
AN EXAMINATION OF THE SPECIAL
JURY LAW PASSED BY THE
NEW YORK LEGISLATURE
IN 1896
BY
B E. N.J. R. Tº UC PC E. R.
NEW York
BENJ. R. TUCKER, PUBLISHER
1898



A Blow at Trial by Jury.”
Mr. President AND FRIENDs:
I hold in my hand an official reprint copy of
Chapter 378 of the State laws of 1896. This
chapter consists of an act in twenty-three sec-
tions, which, after passing the legislature, be-
came a law by the affixing of Governor Mor-
ton's signature on April 23, 1896. It bears
this title:
An act providing for a special jury in criminal cases
in each county of the State having a certain popula-
tion, and for the mode of selecting and procuring such
special juries; also, creating a special jury commis-
sioner for each of such counties, and regulating and
prescribing his duties.
This title does accurately and specifically de-
scribe the immediate objects of the act. I as-
sert, nevertheless, that its ulterior purposes
would have been more clearly revealed, and
that its exterior would have better harmonized
with its “true inwardness,” had it been en-
* A speech delivered by Benj. R. Tucker, editor of Liberty, at a
mass meeting held in Cooper Union, New York, Friday evening,
June 25, 1877, under the auspices of the Central Labor Union, Ty-
pographical Union No. 6, and other labor organizations.

4. A BLow AT TRIAL is Y JURY.
titled “An act providing for the enforcement
of those laws of the State of New York which,
having found their way into the statute-books
only through the insidious machinations of a
clique or a cabal or a boss or an interest or a
handful of fanatics, are so unpopular with the
citizens of the State of New York that a con-
viction of the violation of them can seldom, if
ever, be secured from a jury fairly and impar-
tially impaneled from the mass of sober-minded
people.”
This assertion it is now my purpose to make
good. To do so it is unnecessary to make an
elaborate statement of the provisions of the
law. A circular setting forth its most ob-
noxious features has been distributed among
you, and I shall assume that you are now
familiar with them. I may say, however, in
the briefest way, that the law provides that, in
each county of the State containing five hun-
dred thousand people,_that is, in New York
and Kings counties only,–a special commis-
sioner of jurors shall be appointed by a majo-
rity of the justices of the appellate division of
the supreme court; that his term of office shalf
be five years, but that he shall be removable at
pleasure and without cause by the justices who
appointed him, who shall also fix his salary,
within a maximum limit of six thousand dollars

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 5
a year; that he shall select from the list of or-
dinary trial jurors, after personal examination,
at least three thousand special jurors, and as
many more as the appellate justices may direct,
any of which special jurors he may thereafter
strike from the special jury list at his pleasure,
replacing them with others equally of his own
selection; that he shall not select as a special
juror any person who has been convicted of a
criminal offence, or any person who possesses
conscientious opinions in regard to the death
penalty such as would preclude his finding a
defendant guilty if the crime charged be pun-
ishable with death, or any person who avows
such a prejudice against any law of the State
as would preclude his finding a defendant
guilty of violating such law; that the special
jurors chosen shall be exempt from ordinary
jury duty, and that no one of them shall serve
on a special jury oftener than once a year; that
in any criminal case, upon application from
either side, the justices of the appellate division
may order a special jury trial if for any reason
the due, efficient, and impartial administration
of justice requires it; and that, when the
special jury trial thus ordered shall come on
before the trial court below, the ruling of the
trial court upon the admissibility to the jury
box of any juror challenged for bias shall be
-

6 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
final and not a subject of exception.
Under this law special jury commissioners
have been appointed for the counties of New
York and Kings, and their offices are in full
operation. How much progress has been made
in Kings I do not know, but in New York large
numbers of citizens have been before the com-
missioner for examination at his office in the
Constable Building at the corner of Eighteenth
street and Fifth avenue, and it was stated a
few days ago in the newspapers that he had so
far secured 2,909 out of the needed 3000
special jurors. Among others I had an inter-
esting session with the commissioner, or,
rather, with one of his subordinates, for I did
not succeed in penetrating to the inner temple,
but fell down at one of the outer gates. And I
may note here, by the way, as the single favor-
able comment that can be made upon this
special jury system, that the printed notices
served upon those whom the commissioner
wishes to examine, instead of commanding
them to appear, request them to appear. You
will observe that better manners prevail in the
aristocratic offices of this aristocratic commis-
sioner on aristocratic Fifth avenue than in the
more democratic offices of the ordinary com-
missioner of jurors, who, within sight of the
unemployed on the benches of City Hall park,

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 7
has to deal with the common herd. Let us
find a crumb of comfort, if we can, in this im-
provement in official deportment.
To each person appearing for examination a
printed blank is supplied, which he is expected
to fill out, sign, and swear to, as a condition of
admission to the special jury list. Of the
printed statements contained in the blank, the
following, for reasons which I will give pres-
ently, are the most objectionable:
I have not been convicted of a criminal offence.
I do not possess conscientious opinions with regard
to the death penalty which would preclude me from
finding a defendant guilty, if the crime charged be
punishable with death.
I have not such a prejudice against any law of the
State as would preclude my finding a defendant guilty
of violating such law.
In connection with this blank each person re-
ceiving it is subjected to a personal examination
by the commissioner or one of his subordinates.
He is examined in detail upon each of the state-
ments contained in it, and, in the multitude of
questions asked him, two hypothetical cases,
evidently chosen with deliberation, are pro-
pounded, accompanied by a request that he
state what course he would pursue in each.
Here let me say that, in presenting my views
of this matter before a small company recently,

8 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
I found the phrase “hypothetical question” to
be a cause of misunderstanding. Even a
lawyer, then present, who ought to have known
better, supposed a hypothetical question to be
a question that might be asked, but is not
asked, whereas every lawyer ought to know
that in legal usage a hypothetical question is
one which is actually asked, but which assumes
hypothetical or supposed conditions, and in-
quires of the party questioned what course he
would pursue, or at what conclusion he would
arrive, under the supposed conditions.
Do not misunderstand me, then. The hypo-
thetical questions now referred to were actually
put to me at the commissioner's office; they
were actually put to others; and, in my belief,
they are actually put to all, or nearly all, the
persons who appear for examination. They
are of importance, because they clearly indicate
the intent of the framers and executors of the
special jury law to use it for the enforcement
of unpopular statutes which the average juror
will not consent to enforce. Not that the
framers and executors have seriously at heart
the enforcement of the particular unpopular
statutes involved in the two hypothetical cases,
but they are confident that any man submissive
enough to aid in enforcing these will also prove
submissive enough to aid in enforcing the laws

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 9
which they have seriously at heart, the laws
that sustain the privileged classes in their priv-
ileges, and the laws that strip the masses of
their rights in order to make them an easy prey
for the exploiter.
These, then, are the two hypothetical ques-
tions propounded, as nearly as I can remember
them:
1. “Supposing you to be a juror in a case
where a girl is accused of killing a man who
had betrayed her and declined to fulfil a prom-
ise of marriage, and suppose the evidence to
clearly establish the defendant's guilt, would
the knowledge that a verdict of guilty would
result in the imposition and execution of a
death sentence prevent you from finding such a
verdict 2"
2. “Supposing you to be a juror in a case
where a man is accused of criminally assaulting
a girl under eighteen years of age, and sup-
posing the evidence to clearly establish that the
act was committed with the girl's knowledge
and consent and at her desire, have you any
prejudice against the law making such an act,
so committed, a criminal assault, punishable by
the heavy penalties that attach to such an as-
sault, which would preclude you from finding
the defendant guilty of violating it?”
In addition to these two hypothetical ques-

10 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
tions, particular citation should be made of a
third and general question which is asked:
“Would you, being a juror, and being
charged by the court upon a point of law, and
knowing this point of law to be unsound, de-
cline to accept the ruling 2*
Now, a word as to the origin of this special
jury law. Something less than two years ago,
I think, in consequence of great difficulty that
had been experienced in getting a satisfactory
jury in a celebrated criminal case, much em-
phasis was laid in the newspapers on the
pressing necessity of removing this obstacle
from our legal procedure. Shortly thereafter
the newspapers published a proposed special
jury law purporting to have been drafted by
Justice George C. Barrett, of the New York
supreme court. This proposed law was gen-
erally commended by the press, and was
nowhere attacked, so far as I now remember,
save in a paper which I have the honor to edit.
Happily or unhappily, according to the view
one takes, that paper is read only by thinking
people, and consequently the attack never came
to the knowledge of our lawmakers, which
need not be regretted, since it would have
exercised no influence upon them, if it had.
Apparently the matter found its way before
the legislature in some form, and action was

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 11
taken My memory does not permit me to
state whether the law as it now stands corre-
sponds in every particular with Justice Bar-
rett's draft, but I am safe in saying that, if the
two differ, they differ in detail alone. The
plan and purpose of the existing law are sub-
stantially the plan and purpose of Justice Bar-
rett's draft. And be it noted here that the
bench record of the author of this law is one of
hostility to the rights of organized labor, and
that he is himself a member of that appellate
division of the supreme court which this law
entrusts with a new and unprecedented power.
The law must have been engineered through
the legislature with great secrecy, for I, though
my profession compels me to be an exception-
ally diligent reader of newspapers, saw no re-
cord of its passage and no subsequent discus-
sion of it, my first knowledge of the existence
of the law coming to me almost a year after its
passage in the shape of a notice to appear for
examination under its provisions. And up to
a month ago, before the publicity given by the
present agitation, I had not met a single per-
son, even among lawyers, who had any knowl-
edge of this law which was not the result,
directly or indirectly, of the examination of
some individual concerning his fitness for
special jury service. In the press, up to a

12 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
month ago, a silence had been maintained re-
garding it which could hardly have been more
complete had it been maintained by conspiracy.
And even at this date it can be said that the
excellent editorial, adverse to the law, which
appeared a few days ago in the New York
Daily “News” is the only word of opposition
to the law that has appeared in the editorial
columns of the New York press.”
Now, my friends, I have laid before you
nearly all the information at my disposal con-
cerning this new law. And here I believe that
I might safely leave the subject in your hands.
It seems to me that argument against this
measure is almost a superfluity. The facts
alone appear quite sufficient for its condemna-
tion. Nevertheless, with your permission, I
will indulge myself in a few words of criticism.
But first let me say that I am not here to-
night to question the motives of all who have
furthered this law. Doubtless some have
acted with the best of intent. The main ques-
tion to-night is not what motive inspired the
law, but what it will be possible for men of bad
motive to do with the law when once it has
been placed in their hands as an instrument.
* On the afternoon of the Cooper Union meeting the “Mail and
Express” printed a strong leader in opposition to the special jury
law.

A BLow AT TRIAL BY JURY. 13
Even were we to assume, then, that all the
initiators, framers, enactors, and executors of
this law have been and are prompted only by
the purest intentions and a sincere desire to
facilitate the administration of perfect justice,
it would still remain true that, if, on the con-
trary, they had been actuated by the most
diabolical of designs, by an intent to destroy
individual liberty, to undermine public welfare,
and to utterly emasculate that chief remaining
safeguard of both, the jury system, even in
the condition of decline from its former high
estate to which previous and gradual judicial
usurpations have reduced it, -even then, I say,
they could scarcely have framed an instrument
better adapted than this law for the fell
purpose.
In detailing my criticisms I shall begin with
the minor and proceed to the major.
This law, then, is unjust and a piece of spe-
cial legislation, in that it applies to only two
counties in the State. Important and intricate
cases, widely commented on by the press, may
and do arise in all parts of the State, and not
alone in the counties of New York and Kings;
and, if impartial administration of justice re-
quires that such cases be tried by a special jury
in one or two counties, it requires that they be
so tried in all counties. At the present time,

14 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
in fact, a very important murder trial is in
progress up the State, at Batavia in Genesee
county, and, in consequence of the ridiculous
system of examining jurors now in vogue,
much trouble has been experienced in impanel-
ing a jury. If a special jury system facilitates
the administration of justice, why should Gen-
esee county be deprived of this blessing 2 If
the new law tends to promote justice, then the
people of the State at large are discriminated
against in being shut off from its benefits. If
it tends to promote injustice, then the people of
New York and Kings are discriminated against
in being alone subjected to the evil and oppres-
sion that grow out of it.
This law, again, is a public menace in that it
clothes the judges of the higher courts, who
already exercise prerogatives that are nearer
akin to absolute despotism than anything else
that this country knows, with a new, alarming,
and far-reaching power. It places in the
hands of these judges an absolute control of the
make-up of the jury in whatever cases they may
see fit to try by special jury. The ordinary
commissioner of jurors is an appointee of the
mayor, not of tfie courts, and he is not subject
to removal by the courts. But this new and
special commissioner of jurors is an appointee of
the appellate division of the supreme court,

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 15
and is removable at its pleasure and without
cause. The appellate division selects the com-
missioner and can discharge him at will, and
the commissioner selects the jurors and can dis-
charge them at will. This same appellate divi-
sion fixes the commissioner's salary and the sal-
aries of his subordinates, controls the appoint-
ment and removal of all such subordinates, and
decides what cases shall be tried by special jury.
Thus it has the whole special jury machinery
under its immediate and irresponsible control,
and can see to it, therefore, that jurors to its
liking, and no others, are admitted to the
special jury list from which will be drawn the
juries to try the most important cases that
arise. I submit that this is a distinct and dan-
gerous departure in the direction of judicial
usurpation and despotism.
This law, again, tends to greatly impair the
efficiency of the jury system in general by giv-
ing a tremendous impetus to the growing evil
of exemption from jury duty, and so lowering
the average of the general jury box in quality
that it becomes less representative of the com-
munity as a whole. It withdraws instantly
from ordinary jury duty, in each county to
which it applies, at least three thousand picked
men, and as many more as the court sees fit to
enroll. The ordinary jury list in New York

16 A BLow AT TRIAL BY JURY.
county containing only 35,000 names (and, by
the way, it ought to contain 150,000 at the
very least), to take from it 3,000 names is an
extra exemption of almost ten per cent. ; and
in Kings county, where the ordinary jury list
cannot be more than half as large as that of
New York county, a reduction of 3,000 must
amount to an extra exemption of twenty per
cent. Of course, the burden upon the remain
ing ordinary jurors will be almost correspond-
ingly increased, since the number of special
jury trials will not suffice to shorten the ordi-
nary trial calendar by even one per cent. No
special juror being required to do special jury
duty oftener than once a year, it would be
necessary, in order to give each man of the
minimum three thousand one case annually, to
try by special jury two hundred and fifty cases
each year. But, as the number of cases of
sufficient importance to be so tried would cer-
tainly not exceed twenty-five a year in a given
county, no special juror, unless especially un-
fortunate in the drawing, would be required to
serve oftener than once in ten years. Here,
then, is a very great inducement (to use no
stronger word) offered to those busy and suc-
cessful men who wish to avoid jury duty, and
yet whose services as jurors the public so much
needs, to seek enrollment on the special jury

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 17
list, whereby they may secure absolute exemp-
tion from ordinary jury duty and something
pretty near to exemption from any jury duty
at all. The obvious result is that the great
mass of cases will be tried by a reduced body
of jurors, if not inferior in quality, at least less
representative of the community as a whole.
If this be not an assault on the jury system,
what is it 2. In confirmation of this view, an
important piece of expert testimony has been
rendered very lately. On the evening of
Thursday, May 20, the annual address provided
by the Law Academy of Philadelphia was de-
livered before a representative gathering of
Philadelphia members of the bench and bar by
Justice John Dean, of the Pennsylvania su-
preme court, his subject being “The Jury.”
In this address Justice Dean had nothing to
say of this special jury act, -I doubt if he
knows of its existence,—but he said much that
bears powerfully upon the phase of the subject
which I am now discussing. I cite him upon
it with the more force and the more pleasure,
because, first, he is a high member of the judi-
ciary, whose prerogatives and powers this
special jury act so increases; because, second,
his interest in the subject is prompted by his
sympathy with the holders of property and cap-
ital, and his alarm at what he considers the

18 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
growing tendency of juries to award inordin-
ately heavy damages in suits against corpora-
tions and rich men; and because, third, Mr.
Charles A. Dana, the editor of the “Sun,”
with characteristically unscrupulous audacity,
has striven to make it appear that Justice
Dean sympathizes with the modern assault on
the jury system, whereas, in reality, as you will
see, he is a rational and fair-minded man who
wants to secure justice to all, including the
rich, by restoring trial by jury, in part at
least, to its ancient estate. I wish that time
permitted me to read his entire address to you,
but it limits me to a few extracts. He says:
The jury wheel is to be filled with the names of
“sober, intelligent, and judicious persons.”. . . These
names ought to and do include citizens from every
vocation in life—the laborer, mechanic, business and
professional man. It will at once be noticed that the
jury wheel and the general panel represent the aver-
age conscience and intelligence of the district; elim-
inate from this the mechanic, small storekeeper, and
laborer, you get above the grade of conscience and
intelligence applicable to the settlement of disputes in
ordinary affairs of men; for these are experts in those
matters which immediately concern them. I have re-
ceived more light in the trial of a cause from a coal
miner than from an educated mining engineer; the
coal miner was better educated in the practical knowl-
edge which he dug out with his pick than the engi-
neer, whose knowledge was largely gained from his

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 19
books. And, if you eliminate from the jury panel
the educated man, the man of large business affairs,
the professional man, you get below the average con-
science and intelligence of the judicial district. . . .
The professional man, the boss mechanic, the city
councilman, the thriving farmer, all want to be ex-
cused from jury service, because of the pressing
nature of their business affairs. They are superior
men, the very best specimens of the judicious citizen.
Relieve this class from jury duty, and you at once re-
duce the average of conscience and intelligence in the
jury box. . . . The most intelligent and judicious cit-
izen in every court is seeking to escape jury duty,
and too often he succeeds in evading the performance
of an unpleasant service. This was not the case in the
early history of our country. Then the most intel-
ligent and influential citizens felt honored by being
called upon to serve as jurors, and never sought to
evade the duty. Business was not so exacting in its
demands; the pursuit of wealth was not so eager.
The consequence of this evasion of duty is you have
not in the jury box the average conscience and intel-
ligence of the public. What would be the verdict in
any given case involving a property right with three
or four such men on every jury to aid by their con.
science, intelligence, and knowledge of business affairs
in the deliberation, we cannot certainly know, but I
believe that, with them there, unjust verdicts would
be rare, and the growing dissatisfaction with the jury
system would in a few years disappear. I would take
the banker from his desk, the editor and professor
from their chairs, the preacher from his pulpit, and
put them in the jury box, there, under oath, to well
and truly try or a true deliverance make according to

20 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
the evidence. . . . The presence of such men would
raise the average of conscience and intelligence as in-
dicated by the verdict, and have it represent the in-
telligence and conscience of the general public. .
I have not sought to discourse profoundly on the
principles of jurisprudence, as applicable to trial by
jury, but only to call attention to what to me seems
full of peril to the institution itself, and so, if possible,
to suggest a practical cure for the defect, and to save
to our free government that part of it which, in my
opinion, is its very life. To survive, the jury must
represent the conscience and intelligence of the whole
people, not of a part.
Contrast now with this the purpose of the
special jury act, which is to segregate the busy
men into a separate class of jurors with very
little jury duty to do, and that little often to
be done in matters where the class interests of
men of business are directly at stake, thus mak-
ing them, if unbalanced by other elements, in-
completely representative of the community at
large. How much wiser and fairer is Justice
Dean's proposal to restore to public service as
general jurors these busy men who now suc-
ceed so largely in dodging jury duty alto-
gether, and thereby to give them their just
share of influence in the jury box, and no more!
This law, again, is fraught with danger to
justice in that it is capable of being used by
judges, not only to pack the jury list itself,
but also to pack, with impunity, the special

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 21
jury drawn from the list for any given case.
For under its provisions the trial judge's rul-
ing upon any challenge of a juror for bias is
final and subject to no exception. As appealed
cases are often reversed by the higher courts
because of the lower court’s error in admitting
or excluding a challenged juror, it will be seen
at once that to give the lower court absolute
power in this respect is to greatly add to the
ieopardy of all accused persons. It was errors
of this sort (made, however, by the higher
court as well as the lower, which only shows
the necessity of all possible caution) that led
to the judicial murder of August Spies and his
comrades at Chicago, and that laid the prin-
cipal foundation for the righteous and glorious
pardon issued by Governor Altgeld to Fielden,
Schwab, and Neebe.
But we come to an even more serious phase
of the subject when we approach the qualifica-
tions laid down in this law as requisite in a
special juror. To begin with one of the
milder ones, let us look at the requirement that
he shall never have been convicted of a crim-
inal offence. At first blush this commends
itself, but on a closer look it becomes more
doubtful. If it were required that he should
never have been convicted of certain specified
and extremely serious crimes, possibly no ob-

22 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
jection to it could be offered. But in its pres-
ent sweeping form it is unjust and irrational.
I undertake to say that at least one-half of
the men who have been convicted of crime and
have paid the legal penalties would make as
good jurors as one-half of the men who have
never been so convicted. Who of us, I should
like to know, has never committed a crime?
There is not a person within the sound of my
voice, not a person in active life anywhere in
the civilized world, who does not violate more
than one statute law every day of his life. I
go farther: with the monstrous and ridiculous
laws that year by year are accumulating on our
statute-books, one may safely say that the man
who is not a confirmed criminal is scarcely fit
to live among decent people. Mark Twain,
who is not only a great humorist, but, like
most great humorists, a philosopher as well,
said the other day in all seriousness, in an
article in the New York “Herald,” that,
until a man has committed a crime or under-
gone a term of imprisonment, he is not fit to sit
in judgment upon his fellow-creatures. I do
not go so far as Mark Twain; but I am sure
that much more can be said in favor of his view
than of the contrary view, embodied in the
special jury law, that a man who has been con-
victed of crime is necessarily unfit to sit in

A BLow AT TRIAL BY JURY. 23
judgment. How absurd it is to insist that all
criminals are unfit for jury duty! Why, a man
may commit some of the crimes to which very
heavy penalties are attached, and still be a
well-nigh ideal juror. Suppose, for instance,
—and it is by no means an impossible case, for
stranger things have often happened in our
courts, suppose, I say, that the head of the
house of Harper Bros. were to be arrested under
the Comstock law and sent to prison for ten
years for the crime of publishing and selling
Du Maurier's novel, “Trilby,” or Thomas
Hardy's novel, “Jude, the Obscure”; could it
be claimed for a moment that, on coming out
of prison, provided his imprisonment had not
ruined him physically, mentally, or morally, he
would not make one of the best of jurors?
Under this law John Brown would not have
been an admissible juror; under this law
George Washington would have been excluded
from the jury box; under this law the man who
was legally crucified on Calvary would have
been disqualified for jury duty after he rose
from the dead. And at this present moment I
have in mind a man who would be on this
platform to-night, were he not temporarily ab-
sent from the city; a man whom many people
in this hall know and honor and intimately as-
sociate with; a man whom I consider as be-

24 A BLoW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
longing to the salt of the earth; but a man who
once served a long term in prison for the com-
mission of an act as innocent in itself as my
act in delivering this speech; and this man,
although he has repeatedly served on ordinary
juries in this city and has proved an excellent
juror, was summarily set aside at the special
commissioner's office, after examination, be-
cause he would not deny that he had once been
convicted of a criminal offence. Why, my
friends, I say, entirely apart now from the
question of fitness of a former criminal for jury
duty, that, when a man, having been convicted
of crime and duly sentenced, has paid in full
the penalty exacted of him by society, to com-
pel him thereafter to appear before an official
and, under penalty of further punishment for
contempt, answer the question whether he has
ever been convicted of crime is distinctly an
outrage, and that the law under which this can
be done is an infamy intolerable by freemen.
I shall not dwell long on the requisite that a
special juror must be willing to accept the
court's rulings upon matters of law, because,
although I personally consider it a perversion
of genuine trial by jury, and maintain that
jurors should be judges of the law as well as of
the facts, I recognize that there is a difference
of opinion upon this point, and I wish to-night

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 25
to address you solely from the generally-
accepted view of jury trial. Nevertheless I
crave your indulgence for a moment while I re-
late in this connection a recent experience of
mine illustrative of the ignominious treatment
which jurors continually suffer at the hands of
judges, and of the propensity of the bench to
carry things with a high hand.
A few evenings since, reaching my dwelling-
place at about nine o'clock, I found there a
summons in which I was ordered to appear in
court at ten o'clock the following morning for
ordinary jury duty. Short notice though it
was, I appeared, together with other victims.
After the jury-roll had been called, and those
present had answered their names, and before
any juror had uttered a word or given sign of
protest, the judge (I was informed that it was
Judge McAdam, though I do not know this of
my own knowledge) suddenly broke out with a
tirade after the manner of an impatient school-
master addressing a crowd of unruly school-
boys, saying:
“Now I want you jurors to understand that
you have been summoned here, not to be ex-
cused, but to serve. I will listen to none but.
absolute excuses. If any of you belong to the
militia or fire department or any of the classes
expressly exempt by law, I will hear you.

26 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
Now get into line, those of you who are legally
exempt. All others keep out of the line.”
The line began to form, and, as it length-
ened, the judge broke out again, repeating
almost word by word, but with greater
vehemence, his previous remarks. Although I
did not come within the classes legally exempt,
I took a place in the line with all the intre-
pidity of a member of the really “unterrified”
democracy. Those ahead of me were heard in
private, at the judge's bench, one by one, with
varying results. Finally my turn came.
Placing my summons in the judge's hand, I
said:
“I have already been pronounced incom-
petent to serve as a juror in any case in this
State.”
“How so? Why are you incompetent?”
“Because my views of trial by jury are such
as to prevent me from accepting the ruling of
the court upon a point of law, when, in my
opinion, such ruling is unsound.”
“What Not accept the ruling of the
court 2 How’s that * *
“Because of opinions formed after twenty-
five years’ study of this and kindred questions.”
“Well, but why not accept the court’s rul-
ing? I don’t understand.”
“Because I consider that juries should judge

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 27
the law as well as the facts, as they do in Illi-
nois and Maryland.”
“But so they do here in some cases, for
instance, in cases of criminal libel.”
“I know it; and I simply think that this
should apply to all cases.”
“You an American **
“Yes, sir.”
** Wative American P’’
“Yes, sir.”
“Born in this country?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Well, I am surprised to hear that a native
American entertains such views. Well, I sup-
pose I shall have to excuse you; but I–really
I am astonished to hear a native American talk
so.”
Whereat I smiled sweetly, and departed.
Strange, is it not that a man in this country
cannot manifest the smallest sign of mental
independence without straightway coming
under suspicion of being a Pole, or a Russian,
or a Hungarian, or some other awful monster.
Is it not a curious upsetting of all the tradi-
tions that, when a man with two hundred years
of Yankee stock behind him ventures to in-
timate that his soul is his own, his native
Americanism is promptly called in question?
Yet, after all, it seems not so extraordinary

28 A BLow AT TRIAL BY JURY.
that judges should have such a conception of
native Americanism, when we reflect upon the
contemptible meekness with which native
Americans, for the past twenty years, have sub-
mitted to the piling-up of tyrannies upon them.
I could not help asking myself, as I left that
court-room, after being thus insulted, how
Judge McAdam would feel, should he chance to
meet me that evening in the parlor of a mutual
friend. I wondered with what sort of grace,
under such circumstances, he would be able to
look me in the face. Yet such a contretemps
must sometimes happen in the experience of an
overbearing magistrate. Nay, even worse, for
Judge McAdam's treatment of me was princely
courtesy in comparison with the insults daily
heaped upon inoffensive gentlemen by boorish
judges dressed in a little brief authority. I
cannot urge too strongly upon all who hear me
the importance to true Americanism of refusing
to be overawed by the bad manners of the
bench.
And now for the worst feature of it all. I
refer to the hypothetical questions put by the
special commissioner, and to the requirement
that the special juror shall have no prejudice
against any law of the State that would pre-
clude him from finding a defendant guilty of
violating it. There are times when a single

A BLow AT TRIAL BY JURY. 29
and simple illustration is more forceful than all
the arguments in the world. Let me cite to
you, then, just one fact.
In 1851, in the United States district court
for the district of Massachusetts, Peleg
Sprague, the United States district judge, in
empanelling three several juries for the trials of
Scott, Hayden, and Morris, charged with hav-
ing aided in the rescue of a fugitive slave from
the custody of the United States deputy mar-
shal, caused the following question to be pro-
pounded to all the jurors separately, and those
who answered unfavorably for the purposes of
the government were excluded from the panel.
Do you hold any opinions upon the subject of the
fugitive slave law, so called, which will induce you to
refuse to convict a person indicted under it, if the
facts set forth in the indictment, and constituting the
offence, are proved against him, and the court direct
you that the law is constitutional?
The reason of this question was that the
“fugitive slave law, so-called,” was so ob-
noxious to a large portion of the people as to
render a conviction under it hopeless, if the
jurors were taken indiscriminately from among
the people.
A similar question was soon afterwards pro-
pounded to the persons drawn as jurors in the
United States circuit court for the district of

30 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
Massachusetts, by Benjamin R. Curtis, one of
the justices of the supreme court of the United
States, in empanelling a jury for the trial of
Morris, and again those answering unfavorably
for the government were excluded.
Now I ask you, my friends, if you think this
new jury law is in harmony with the people,_
if you think, that is to say, that the people de-
sire the “fugitive slave laws” of to day to be
easy of enforcement. Here we get at the very
essence of this issue. The purpose of trial by
jury is less the punishment of the guilty than
the safety of the innocent. The object of the
barons when they exacted the right of jury
trial from King John was the protection of the
individual against the tyranny of the govern-
ment. The object of those who are now seek-
ing to emasculate this right seems to be to
leave the individual helpless in the tyrant's
hands.
“But,” I hear some one ask, “is it not
rather absurd to put the enforcement of a law
in the hands of a jury composed in whole or a
part of men prejudiced against that law 2°
Well, it does seem a bit irrational, until we
inquire what the purpose of statute law is, or
ought to be. If the purpose of statute law is
the attainment of a rigid, inflexible, stiff-
backed, cast-iron justice, then perhaps the spe-

A BLow AT TRIAL BY Jur-Y. 31
cial jury system is an excellent method of
achieving it. But I declare to you that no
such justice is wanted in any civilized com-
munity. We want a justice, not rigid, but
elastic; we want a justice, not stern, but tem-
pered with mercy, sympathy, and common
sense; we want a justice, not blind, but with
eyes sharp enough to detect causes, conditions,
and circumstances; we want a justice, not
superficial, but profound. Granting perfectly
that no man is entitled to assault another, we
yet want a justice that will not punish the
striker who knocks down a so-called “scab."
three times as severely as it punishes any com-
mon citizen for knocking down another common
citizen. Granting perfectly that property
ought to be protected against thieves, we yet
want a justice that, instead of putting the rich
man who steals a million in prison for a year
and the poor boy who steals a ten-cent pocket-
book in prison for six years and a half, will re-
verse the severity of those sentences. Granting
perfectly the validity of the eighth command-
ment, we want a justice that, when convinced
that a man has stolen a loaf of bread because he
was actually starving, will send him to jail for
not more than a week, and will see that he has
three good meals a day while he is there.
And not only granting, but asserting, the free-

32 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
dom of woman to choose, we want a justice
that will see to it that a difference of twenty-
four hours in a young woman's age shall not
make all the difference between a man at per-
fect liberty and a man in prison for twenty
years. But such justice as this, my friends,
is not to be had by excluding from jury duty
men who have prejudices against certain stat-
utes. It is prejudice against the law that
oftenest saves society. However we may look
at it theoretically, prejudice against the law
serves in practice as a most valuable corrective
of the folly of law-givers and the cruelty of
courts. Shall we, then, dismiss so useful a
public servant 2
Suppose, however, that we were to admit—
which we do not, for the reasons just given—
suppose we were to admit that prejudice against
a particular law ought to disqualify the man
who entertains it for jury service in a trial in-
volving that law. There is nothing new about
this. As we have seen, it is a condition that
has sometimes been insisted on in the past.
But does this furnish the slightest justification
for a jury law providing that no man having a
prejudice against any single law, no matter
what, shall sit as juror in any important case
whatsoever, though the law involved in the
case be one in which he thoroughly believes?

A blow at trial by jury. 33
Under this special jury law a man prejudiced
against the Raines law could not serve as juror
in a murder trial, though he believed as stoutly
as Moses and Jehovah in the doctrine of an eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a
life. Under it a man having conscientious
scruples against the death penalty could not sit
in judgment on the tobacco trust, though he
were to outdo Karl Marx in asserting the right
of the State to suppress freedom of trade.
Could there be a more monstrous perversion of
common sense and fairness than this 2 Does it
not show beyond a doubt that the purpose of
this law is to exclude men who are both intel-
ligent and honest from the jury box * For
who are the intelligent and honest men in a
community? They certainly are not the men
who swallow all the laws in a lump. Rather
are they the men of sufficient mental calibre to
enable them to examine the laws for them-
selves, to discriminate between the good and
the bad, and to reject some while accepting
others.
“But,” it may be said, “this law does not
exclude the simply prejudiced; it excludes
only those who will not or can not put aside
their prejudices sufficiently to enable them to
convict.” Ah! it is a damaging admission.
For it is confessed thereby that it is the pur-

34 A BLoW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
pose of this law to recruit special jurors ex-
clusively from those who are willing to de-
throne their brains and consciences, to abdicat-
their individual sovereignty, and become mere
cat’spaws of those in power. I take it that it
is not such men that we need for the jury box.
But that this new law wants such, and only
such, we have abundant proof. I know a
man—a very amiable gentleman, whom I
esteem highly as a friend—who is on this spe-
cial jury list. He is a very mild and gentle
individual, who strongly objects to capital
punishment. He was examined by one of the
commissioner's subordinates, and then by the
commissioner himself. The commissioner, on
discovering his objection to the death penalty,
turned to his subordinate, and asked rather
severely:
“Why did you bring this man in to me?
You should have known that he would not do
for us.”
“Please, sir, ask him a few more questions,”
mildly urged the subordinate.
The few more questions were put, and, in
answering them, the gentleman stated that,
while believing it wrong to kill a murderer, he
would consider it his duty, in his capacity as a
juror, to find a murderer guilty, in order that
the State might kill him.

A BLoW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 35
“Oh! in that case,” said the commissioner,
“you are just the man we want,” and on the
list he went.
I suppose that this gentleman would also
accept the office of sheriff, press the button that
would send a fatal current of electricity
through some helpless wretch, and then piously
exclaim: “Of this act of murder I wash my
hands. It was not I, it was the sheriff who did
it.” I do not believe that the people of these
two counties want their jury boxes filled ex-
clusively with such men as he.
Do not, however, understand me to declare
that all the men now on this special jury list
are thoroughly objectionable. I believe that it
is a part of the plan to have some good men on
it at first. The executors of the law desire to
be able to say to objectors: “See! we have
laborers on our jury list.” Personally I know
of two or three labor leaders who are on the
list. I even know one Anarchist on it. It is
the intention not to be too particular in this
first sifting. Moreover, it is no easy matter,
even in as large a county as New York, to find
at short notice 3,000 men exactly to the liking
of our masters. So they are taking the best
that they can easily get, being well aware that,
as they learn to know their men, they can cast
out the unruly and put the submissive in their

36 A BLow AT TRIAL BY JURY.
places. Meanwhile the game is to make the
thing attractive to the people. Note the course
lately pursued by the commissioner against
Mr. John Claflin, millionaire, of the great dry
goods house of Claflin & Co. Mr. Claflin has
long been accustomed to ignoring notices to
appear for jury duty. Consequently, and
being unaware of the new special jury law,
when he received the special commissioner's
notice, he ignored this also. But, the mil-
lionaires collectively having in their own inter-
est determined that no individual millionaire
shall dodge special jury duty, a warrant forth-
with issued for Mr. Claflin's arrest. Where-
upon he hastened before the commissioner,
and was received with the usual affability. I
tell the story substantially as it was told in the
newspapers
“Evidently, Mr. Claflin,” said the commis-
sioner, in substance, “you don't know a good
thing when it is put in your way. If you had
known what a snap we were offering you, you
would have come here voluntarily. Why, my
dear sir, this is the juror's paradise. You are
not only exempt from ordinary jury duty, but,
assuming the worst, you will not have to serve
on a special jury oftener than once in four
years.”
And then Mr. Claflin's examination began.

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 37
“Have you, Mr. Claflin, any prejudice
against any law of the State that would pre-
clude you from finding a defendant guilty of
violating it?”
* Well, yes, I have a prejudice against the
Anti-Trust law.”
“But now, Mr. Claflin, you surely are an
honest man. Do you not think that, in spite
of your prejudice, you could find a verdict in
accordance with the law and the evidence?”
“Well, yes, I suppose I could.”
And so Mr. Claflin's name went on the list,
and a double purpose had been served. An
effective warning had been given to the rich as
to what their fellow rich men expect of them
in this matter, and, by a huge bluff, the people
had been assured that this new law is the poor
man's friend, designed to force the rich man to
do his fair share of jury duty. By holding this
meeting to-night the organized labor of these
two counties declares that this bluff does not
go, and insists that the commissioner and his
backers shall show their hand. It is a call
which the special commissioner will not relish,
for, as he recently declared in conversation, his
commissionership is his bread and butter.
It is likely, my friends, that still other efforts
will be made to hoodwink the people. Special
pains may be taken to make ordinary jury ser-

38 A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY.
vice appear inefficient, ineffective, and ridicu-
lous, and, with the ground thus prepared, the
special jury law may be first brought into ac-
tion in a case carefully selected for the con-
cealment of its inherent evils, and the abuses
for which it opens the door may be strenuously
avoided. Then the newspapers will promptly
call our attention to the beautiful manner in
which this law is saving the precious time of
our courts. But some fine day a band of fana-
tics will have a pet persecution to enforce, or a
band of thieves will contemplate a new and gi-
gantic steal under the cover of the law, and we
shall awake to the fact that we have placed in
the hands of our enemies one of the most potent
engines ever devised for crushing out the lib-
erties of men.
I come here to-night simply to warn you of
the danger. The law is passed and on the stat-
ute books, thanks to our indifference. We are
confronted now with a condition, not a theory.
And I ask you, in the language of a great cri-
minal, famous and infamous in the annals of
New York, who, numerous and appalling as
were his crimes, never committed any half as
mischievous, never perpetrated one a thousandth
part as wicked in effect, as this new law will
prove, I ask you, in the language of Bill
Tweed, but in a very different spirit: “What

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 39
are you going to do about it?”
For myself, I tell you frankly that I am not
too hopeful of this law's repeal. Mighty in-
terests are entrenched behind it. I am certain
that it will not be repealed if our efforts are to
stop with this meeting. I am certain that you
cannot secure its repeal by going to Albany
and asking for it. I am certain that you will
not remove it from the statute books by your
ballots next November. Make these efforts if
you will; I wish you all success. But I predict
failure. There is, however, a way, a certain
way, of repealing this law, and it lies in your
own hands. That way is the pursuance by
each of you, individually, in the courts, of that
policy which Parnell pursued so successfully in
the British parliament, the policy of passive
resistance, the policy of loud and steady pro-
test, the policy of embarrassment, hindrance,
blockade, and obstruction. Next week, next
month, next autumn, next year, at some time
or other in a not remote future, it will fall to
the lot of many of those in this hall, and to
many more in these two counties outside of this
hall, to be summoned for ordinary jury duty.
If each and every one of you, on being placed
in the jury box and before each trial begins,
will rise in his place and say to the court: “I
most earnestly protest against having to serve

40 A blow at trial by jury.
on this jury; there were already too many
exemptions, and now the exemption by the spe-
cial jury law of an additional three thousand in
this county imposes upon me more than my fair
share of jury duty; I serve here only on com-
pulsion and in a spirit of indignant discon-
tent,”—if each and every one of you will do
this, and will repeat it on every occasion that
arises, you will powerfully contribute to a con-
stantly-swelling current of public opinion that
sooner or later will become a torrent and cause
this obnoxious law either to be repealed, or
else, to quote Grover Cleveland again, to fall
into a state of innocuous desuetude. You need
not fear to take this course. You are perfectly
safe in doing so. Every juror has a right to
make such a protest. No one can say him
nay. The judge will frown, but he is power-
less to do more. The very worst that he can
do is to ask you if you are a native American.
And you, in return, if you choose to take a
risk, and desire to rival the judge as a black-
guard, can ask him if his grandmother was a
monkey. If, indeed, you have in you just a
little of the stuff that stiffened the spines of
native Americans a century ago, you will go
still further, on occasion. You will resent
every attempt of the court to encroach upon the
province of the juror, and especially, when the

A BLow AT TRIAL BY JURY. 41
court orders you as a juror to bring in a certain
verdict, you will decline to do so, and will then
and there declare that the registration of the
verdict as your own is a falsehood spread upon
the records of the court. If you have in you
the stuff to do that, you will win this fight; if
you have not, you deserve your slavery. At
any rate such tactics alone can succeed, and it
is these tactics that I advise you to follow,
while I at the same time promise to follow
them myself. Remember, my friends, that
they have rights who dare maintain them.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I offer,
and move the adoption of, the following
resolutions: *
Whereas, the legislature of the State of New York
for 1896 passed, and the then governor of the State
signed, a special jury law whereby the trial of im-
portant criminal cases will be taken out of the hands
of ordinary juries and placed in the hands of special
juries drawn from a special panel of at least three
thousand men; and
Whereas, special jury commissioners have been ap-
pointed under this law in the counties of New York
and Kings—the only counties to which this law ap-
plies—and are now engaged in selecting special jury
lists; and
Whereas, this law creates a new and dangerous de-
parture by placing the selection and control of special
* The resolutions were adopted by a unanimous vote.

42 A BLow AT TRIAL BY JURY.
juries and of the special jury commissioners in the
hands of the judiciary; and
Whereas, it forbids the selection for special jury
duty of any person who avows such a prejudice
against any law of the State as would preclude his
finding a defendant guilty of violating such law,
thereby preventing every man whose intelligence and
sense of justice will not allow him to become an in-
strument for the execution of a particular law, to him
revolting, from serving as a juror in any criminal trial
of high importance, even though he thoroughly ap-
prove the law whose violation is the occasion of such
trial; and
Whereas, it further forbids the selection for special
jury duty of any person who has been convicted of a
criminal offence, notwithstanding the fact that many
of the acts which the laws pronounce criminal may be
and are committed daily by men whose unquestionable
intelligence, honesty, and love of order peculiarly fit
them for jury service; and
Whereas, by these exclusions, it throws out of the
special jury box all men of independent mind, and fills
it with mere tools for the execution of unjust and
tyrannical designs; and
Whereas, by exempting from ordinary jury duty the
three thousand men selected for the special jury list
in each county where the law applies, it so alters the
ordinary jury list as to make it less representative of
the community at large, and thereby strikes a blow at
the jury system, to say nothing of making the burden
of ordinary jury duty more onerous by largely re
ducing the number of men liable to such duty, while
lessening but very little the sum total of such duty;
and
Whereas, as a condition of exemption from ordinary

A BLOW AT TRIAL BY JURY. 43
jury duty, it imposes but a very small amount of
special jury duty, thus offering to those who are rich
enough, or powerful enough, or unscrupulous enough,
or pliant enough, to gain admission to the special jury
list, what the special jury commissioner for the county
of New York is said to have described as “the juror's
paradise”; and
Whereas, it seriously adds to the danger of every ac-
cused person tried under its provisions by refusing to
such person what every accused person has hitherto
enjoyed,—namely, the right to appeal to a higher
court for review of the trial court's decision upon the
admissibility to the jury box of a juror challenged for
actual bias; and -
Whereas, it being applicable only to New York and
Kings counties, it unwarrantably discriminates between
citizens, since its provisions, if just and beneficial,
should be enjoyed by citizens of all counties alike,
and, if unjust and detrimental, should not be enforced
upon any; and
Whereas, for the various reasons specified, it is
capable of being utilized for trial by the classes, of
questions deeply affecting the liberty and welfare of
the masses, to the nullification of that supreme safe-
guard of popular liberties, the right of the accused to
trial by jury of his peers, which we owe to the men
who, bearing arms in their hands, exacted from the
tyrant John, nearly seven hundred years ago, the
Great Charter of English Liberties, -therefore
We, citizens of New York and Kings counties, in
mass meeting assembled, in the hall of the Cooper
Union, on this twenty-fifth day of June, 1897, do
hereby resolve:
1. That we protest against the presence in the
statute books of the special jury law here described,

44 A BLow AT TRIAL BY JURY.
and demand that the State legislature, at its next
session, repeal it without delay.
2. That we cannot too strongly condemn the legis-
lators who voted for this law, and the then governor,
Levi P. Morton, who signed it, for thus recklessly lay,
ing hands on the most valuable of our political insti-
tutions, already seriously weakened by the steady en-
croachments of judicial usurpation.
3 That we call upon the justices of the appellate
divisions of the supreme court to whose discretion is
entrusted the ordering of special jury trials under this
law, to steadily refuse, in the exercise of that dis.
cretion, to order such trials, on the ground that by
their very nature they cannot contribute to that “due,
efficient, and impartial administration of justice”at
which the law professes to aim.
4. That, remembering the splendid judicial services
already rendered by the Hon. William J. Gaynor,
justice of the supreme court of the second judicial dis
trict of the State, in defending the rights of the citizen
against official invasion, we especially and confidently
rely upon him to use his large influence, as jurist as
well as publicist, to thwart the evil designs of the
enemies of trial by jury.
5. That, while realizing that the friends of liberty
and equality can expect no aid from that portion of
the daily press which habitually gives sanction to
every new form of oppression and privilege, we
wonder at the apathetic silence on this momentous
question thus far maintained by the New York dailies
that champion the cause of the common people, with
the single exception of the “Daily News,” to which,
for lifting its voice against this iniquitous law, we
offer our heartiest thanks.
6. That we call upon each and every citizen who

A 1-Low AT TRIAL BY JU RY. 45
may be drawn for ordinary jury duty to enter his in-
dividual, separate, and public protest, from his seat
in the jury box, against being compelled to serve
upon a jury, on the ground that the exemption of
three thousand special jurors from ordinary jury duty
places upon his shoulders an unfair burden.
7. That we likewise urge upon every trial juror the
importance of upholding the independence of the jury
box by resenting with dignity, but with firmness,
every attempt of the bench to encroach upon it, and
especially by declining to render a verdict at the dicta-
tion of the court. -
8. That it is the duty of every member of the bar,
in the interest of his client, of his profession, and of
the public welfare, to second the efforts of jurors to
maintain their prerogatives.
9. That, agreeing with Justice John Dean, of the
supreme court of Pennsylvania, that the jury should
“represent the conscience and intelligence of the
whole people,” we demand the repeal of that section
of the regular jury law which exempts from jury
duty all persons not worth two hundred and fifty
dollars.
10. That a printed copy of these resolutions, signed
and certified to by the secretary of this meeting, be
forwarded by him to the governor and lieutenant-
governor of the State, to the secretary of State, to
ex-Governor Levi P. Morton, to every member of the
legislature of 1896, to every new member of the legis-
lature of 1897, to every member of the State court of
appeals, to every supreme court justice of the State,
to the recorder of the city of New York and to each
of the three judges of general sessions, and to the dis-
trict attorneys and commissioners of jurors, ordinary
and special, of New York and Kings counties: and

46 A Blow AT TRIAL BY JURY.
that these officials and ex officials are hereby requested
to regard these resolutions as notice served upon them
that the citizens of New York and Kings are alive to
their interests, jealous of their liberties, and deter-
mined to protect both.
Speaks for itself.
[New York Evening Post, October 19, 1897.]
The board of estimate and apportionment this morn-
ing adopted the provisional estimate of the office of
the special commissioner of jurors calling for $25,000
because it was said to be compelled by law to do so.
Mr. Jeroloman protested that this was throwing
away the city's money, but he was advised by Cor-
poration Counsel Scott and Comptroller Fitch that
the board had no option, and could be mandamused if
it failed to appropriate.
Mr. Jeroloman declared that the special commis-
sioner had not drawn a single jury this year, and Cor-
poration Counsel Scott added that it wouldn't empanel
a jury next year. But the city will pay the $25,100
nevertheless. The salaries and expenses are as fol-
lows: Henry W. Gray, special commissioner, $6,000;
William T. Gray, assistant commissioner, $3,000; four
clerks, at $1,500, $6,000; stenographer, $1,500; three
typewriters, at $1,000, $3.000; three messengers, at
$1,000, $3,000; rent, $2,300; contingent expenses,
$300; total, $25,100.


|