The Daily News. SATURDAY, MAY 28. WOMEN JURORS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 41, 28 May 1910, Page 4

The Daily News. SATURDAY, MAY 28. WOMEN JURORS.

A Home Magistrate, giving evidence before the Divorce Commission, was of opinion, states a cable message, that in divorce cases half of the jury should be women. The Magistrate's suggestion is, apparently, that the ordinary jury of men either can not or will not do justice to the parties in a suit. This is a very grave accusation. There is no doubt that in most cases twelve men, selected at hazard, do, as a usual habit, give considerable attention to the ease* on which they sit, and it is quite unusual for a majority in a jury to show bias. Although it may be found impossible to select occasionally an individual who is perfectly judicial in his view and who does not allow personal bias to overrule him, it would be difficult to suggest any •better method than the jury system. As far as we are aware, there is no determined effort on the part of women to obtain representation on juries in divorce cases, and one fails to grasp the utility of the suggestion. There can .be no doubt that it would be extremely difficult to obtain six volunteer women in New Plymouth to-day to sit on a jury, and any alteration of the system would mean the coercion of women in the matter. They would be summoned to attend as in the case of men. It has to be admitted that woman is not intended by nature »r habit of thought to act with deliberate justice against her personal inclinations. It is reasonable that in the majority of divorce cases where a mixed jury was empanelled that the decision would be dominated 1 by the men. A woman decides a question to her own satisfaction instantly. Her heart dictates her resolution, and she would be unconsciously biassed before the case ibegan. If it is supposed that with mixed juries there would be fewer divorces, the supposition appears to be erroneous. If, however, it had 'this effect, there would be greater marital inharmony than at present. Any alteration of procedure having for its goal the continuance of unhappy unions is to be deprecated. Man is solemnly warned not to "put asunder" man and wife, ibuit he has found it necessary to do so for the peace of civilisation. Th« idea that .persons whose incompatibility is proved shall, willy nilly, remain joined until death as repugnant to every person who understands human nature. There is a possibility that the Magistrate referred to understood the truth that in cases of sex relations woman frequently favors the male side. And he also was probatory guided in his advice about mixed juries by the thought that men may be biassed in favor of women. But the student of human nature must admit that woxian is more biassed than man, although she influences all men monre than any man can do. In fact woman's power is remarkable enough and powerful enough for good in ordinary life without calling on her to decide matters of divorce in court. If women showed any general inclination to sit on divorce case juries, and if this were permitted, it should also- be permitted for them to sit on other juries. If their influence is for good in the Divorce Court it is also for good in the Criminal Court. All the relations, of life are guided by the sex question. If women administer the law they should be allowed to help to make it. However, as they show no violent inclination to undertake man's duties, why endeavor to force them? So many places are open for women nowadays that it might be an interesting experiment to give them a trial on juries. In very few cases where women have been able to, undertake the duties that men 'mve hitherto performed solely have they shown a disposition to permanently make a living by tlwsa duties. They compete only temporarily with men. No- sensible man is angry at the competition of woman. He is only sony for her, knowing in his heart of hearts that she is misplaced in such competition, and, apart from ability, is- not physically fitted to undertake it. In reality it would be cruel to force women •to sit on any jury. Any man who has sat day after day in a stuffy court listening to dreadful details of crime or immorality knows what a strain is put upon him. Very frequently a jury is locked up for many hours. To lock up a jury of women, who possibly might have very necessary womanly duties to perform, would be repugnant to humanity and to chivalry. Certainly, women jurors might be drawn from the ranks of the spinsters, but surely no one would hold that a spinster should help to adjudicate in a divorce suit, unless she intended altering her condition subsequently. The persons best able to decide whether women shall be called upon to iserve on juries in divorce are Judges in divorce. These gentlemen see so much of marital unhappiness that they much more often grant release from it than not. Magistrates, too, see the seamy side of life, but are probably not so competent to decide on such an important point as the women concerned or the Judges who try cases. The idea may be looked upon in some quarters as an advance in fairness and a compliment to women. It will possibly be found, however, if women are consulted, that they will show very little inclination to sit on any kind of jury.