WOMEN AS JURORS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 48, 21 February 1912, Page 8

WOMEN AS JURORS.

!''..a i‘!l\l IvsC I. •NA' f 11.1I 1 .1 \ll A. SOME INTERESTING .VERDICTS. Mixed juries of men 'and women having boon tided out with varying success in several of the women suffrage States, California, the newest recruit now goes still further declares the Literary Digest of New York, and experiments with juries made up entirely of women. The doings of two such juries have already been recorded in despatches to the Eastern press of America and the only conclusion they seem to point to is that somo women make good jurors and some do not. In the first case an all-women judy in Watts, Cal., came to an agreement within twenty minutes 'after hearing the evidence and returned a verdict which won wide applause from the press for its dispassionate common sense. In the second case a similar jury in the neighbouring city of Los Angelos so acquitted itself as to confirm the cynicism of those editors who declare that twelve women can never be persuaded to agree on anything. In both cases, the bare facts, as telegraphed to the eastern press arc more interesting that most of the comment which they evoke.

In Watts, Mr A. King, editor of the the Watts News, was tried before a jury of women on the charge of publishing obscene and indecent language in his newspaper and was acquitted. A Californian correspondent of the New Y'ork Sun tolls the story as follows :

“Watts is a town seven miles south of Los Angeles. King accused a town

trustee of applying profane language to him printing the exact epithets hurled by tho trustee which reflected on his parentage. “The people of the town are in sympathy with the editor, and there was a demonstration in his favour when the case was called this morning. “Thirty-six women summoned for 'jury duty responded. When the twelve were chosen the case went to trial, and witness repeated the exact words.

“The women heard the profanity without a quiver. The jury said that the language was profane simply, am not obscene. They said it was less ; of a shock when 'they read it in a newspaper in their homes than when they heard it from men in front of saloons as they walked along the street. “Yet such men,” said one juror, “never are arrested. Why should we punish the editor?” When King was acquitted the ;women cheered.

The Memphis '“Gem mercial Appeal” adds the information that the editor thus acquitted 'had been a-vigorous .opponent of the women-suffrage cause during -tlio recent campaign: Tiro women’s verdict, remarks the Chicago “Tribune,” was “rich in common sense,” and the Knoxville “Sentinel” agrees that “it was no doubt a copi-mon-sense ending of a somewhat trivial case.” Yet in spito of this apparently satisfactory outcome at least one newspaper critic pretends to find cause for alarm in the fact that the women were'allowed to wear their: hats in the jury-box. Says the editor of" the ’ San Francisco “Post” :—/ ■

“Of'course this is a little tiring, hut it does not jibe with that slogan of equal suffrage concerning ‘equal rights for all and special privileges to none.’ That battle-cry was raised during the late campaign; Hero wo have one of the first jury-women on one of the first juries composed cf women asking for something that has the earmarks of a special privilege, a little one, but a special privilege just the same. “If the ladies are permitted to wear their hats in the jury-box the Legislature should provide that they wear hats of uniform size and without hatpins. On mixed juries tlie men compelled to sit in the box with jurywomen would bo on tenterhooks all through the trial attempting to dodge the hatpins. A bald-headed man with poor eyesight compelled- to serve on a jury of this sort would lie lucky to retain his scalp at the end of a long session. “Again, a variety of hats would tend to distract the attention- of some jury-women from the work before them. A jury-woman with a large variety of millinery 7 might change her hat every day, and keep the loss fortunate feminine members of the jury busy getting ideas of creations yt their own, to the detriment of their interest in the trial.”

California’s second experiment with a jury of twelve “good women and true” had a very different ending. The case was that of I. H. hunger, accused of violating the speed laws on his motor-cycle, and the trial took place in Los Angeles. Say r s a despatch from that city to the New York “Herald” :

“Twelve womon-jurors argued for an hour to-day as to where they would go for luncheon, and twelve .different places were named, but no two of the jurors could agree upon one. The Magistrate, hungry himself, begged them to agree, but they just wouldn’t, and they and ho went without luncheon.

“Exasperated, the Court ordered the jury locked up. There were four hours and a half continuous talking that frequently penetrated the corridors. Somewhat dishevelled and flushed, twelve women filed into Court and announced that they could not agree on a verdict either. ‘Just because,’ was one woman’s explanation of her refusal to convict. She was Mrs Nora E. Danford, the forewoman. Upon the demand of the Court she explained that she had no confidence in the District Attorney’s case. “The jury was discharged, an 1 the Magistrate announced that men would ho selected next time to try the case.” “It will be seen then,” remark?

11io Pill sbvrg “Chronicle '.I clegrapli." “that there may be bad women juries as well as good cues. jus> as we hue: a varying standard ei Illness among juries of the other sex ; as to how the average of fitness ou the part of male and female juries compares further demonstration must be awaited.” In the State of Washington recent legislation has made jury service on the part of women optional instead of compulsory. There and in Colorado the ,mixed jury is becoming almost a commonplace, although it seems to have brought in its wake same minor but embarrassing problems which still await solution. Thus, in the “Memphis Commercial Appeal” we read:— ~ “A most: embarrassing issue was raised in Seattle when two women and ten men were empannelled on a jury in a murder case. Under the Federal Constitution the jury had to be locked up. Members cannot be separated. The women protested, and were excused by the Court. Counsel raised objections to this. The trial but the point of law is yet to be settled by the Supreme Court. Objections have been raised by women to male members of the jury smoking in the jury-room, and the male members of the jury objected to women members wearing hats in the jury-box. These are minor matters.”

Despatches from Seattle .and Tappina report that women jurors have shown themselves “consistently anxious to punish the guilty”—more so, in fact, than men jurors.