Reading Time: 3 minutes [364 words]

JAMES THOMPSON CALLENDER. 865

cording to the dictates of conscience and the laws of the
eountry, and to control them would endanger the right of
this most invaluable mode of trial.

T have understood that some reliance would be placed on
two decisions of the courts of this State, in which they deter-
mined two acts of our legislature to be unconstitutional; but
when we eome to analyze these decisions, they will not au-
thorize the belief that the jury have not the right I contend
for—they only prove that the judiciary can declare legisla-
tive acts to be unconstitutional; they do not prove that a
jory may not have a similar power. In the case of Kamper
v. Hawkins, they refused to carry into effect a law which
gave the district courts a right to grant injunctions in cer-
tain cases, because they thought it unconstitutional, and that
the courts had no power to act under the law. That case did
not turn on a relative view of the power and connection of a
eourt and jury; it was a question whether the courts would
exercise 8 particular jurisdiction, and carry into effect that
act as practiced by the judges in chancery; but they never
decided that a jury had not a right to determine on the
eonstitutionality of a law, nor could a question about this
right have arisen in those two cases; the court said that the
judiciary were not bound to carry into effect an unconstitu-
tional law. I do not deny the right of the court to determine
the law, but I deny the right of the court to control the jury;
though I have not bestowed a very partienlar attention on
this subject, I am perfectly convineed that the jury have the
right I contend for; and, consequently, that counsel have a
right to address them on that subject.

The act of Congresa to which I have alluded, appears to
have given to the jury the power of deciding on the law and
the fact; and I trust, that when this whole question comes
into consideration, the court will suffer the counsel for the
traverser to go on to speak to the jury, subject to the diree-
tion of the court.

Mr. Hay observed that he was prepared to address the
court on the extent of the powers of the jury in the case at

Related Posts