The Struggle for Jury Reform in Early Seattle

It has been the custom to introduce the written constitutions of the American states by formal declaration of those rights of individuals which are deemed sacred and unalienable—the right to enjoy and defend life, to acquire and own property, and to be free from governmental control. When we enter the realm of procedure, the means and methods of determining and enforcing rights, nothing can be said to be absolute. The right of trial by jury, for instance, is not an absolute right founded in the nature of things, therefore unalterable by human law. The jury is of comparatively recent origin, claimed as a right by only a part of the civilized world. The jury is one of the institutions of English judication and has been cherished by those commonwealths that have sprung from England. We may retain the jury without fearing that it is a thing perfected by our ancestors and incapable of adjusting to the needs of our own advancement. Whatever of the ancient reasons for the jury exist at this time and in this country, there is surely no reason why its manifest defects should not be remedied. Why shall not a person accused of crime be allowed to waive the number of jurors and submit his case to a fewer number? There is no sanctity in the number twelve. A further step forward would be the adoption of something like this: The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; a jury shall consist of twelve jurors, unless the parties agree to a less number; except that in courts held by justices of the peace, a jury shall consist of six jurors. It is to be hoped the members of the convention will approach this subject of jury trial in a spirit of willingness to adopt any plan that commends itself to their judgment as sound in principle and expedient in practice.