A GLANCE AT THE JURY SYSTEM. 291 



ing the guilt or innocence of accused persons is, in England, the basis 

 of public liberty, the bulwark of the people against oppression, the 

 legal guarantee of life, of honor, and of the property of the citizens. 

 A jury is the buckler of innocence against unjust accusations, and the 

 sworn arbiter of those who have recourse to the tribunals in order to 

 obtain justice. Under this institution the laws may be the means of 

 protection or of destruction, of hope or of misery, according to the 

 spirit, the firmness, and the integrity of the jurors." This is the lan- 

 guage of a writer at the beginning of the present century. They are 

 his opening words — the overture, so to speak, of his work. But the 

 qualification he has seen fit to append to it seems, logically, to bring 

 the wordy structure to the ground. 



How the jury can be " the basis of public liberty, the bulwark of 

 the oppressed, the buckler of innocence," and so on, and yet depend 

 for all these upon the character of the men who compose it, one can 

 hardly imagine. If the jurymen were all wise, honest, and true — if, in 

 short, they were perfect — we would, undoubtedly, have perfect verdicts. 

 But, if all judges were perfect, the same result would be arrived at in a 

 much simpler way. We can only look for perfect judges and perfect 

 juries when all mankind are perfect ; and, when all mankind are per- 

 fect, there will be no need of either. And though the jury may have 

 been once all that is thus ascribed to it, how can it be so now ? In 

 what manner can it be said to be the basis of public liberty at the 

 present day, and who are the oppressed ? 



The ideal juryman is not supposed to be more perfect than the 

 ordinary run of mankind ; but he is supposed to enter the jury-box 

 free from all prejudices or predilections concerning the matter to be 

 decided. He is supposed to be chosen according to a system which 

 insures the highest degree of impartiality — a system which, in large 

 communities at least, makes the selection of each juror a matter of 

 pure chance. But in such communities there is a large amount of 

 business to be disposed of, and a large number of persons, called a 

 panel, is required, from which each particular jury is taken. This 

 furnishes a considerable quantity of material — of raw material, it may 

 be called — from which the actual twelve are to be selected. These per- 

 sons are drawn from a class of society the most plastic, the most sub- 

 ject to prejudices and animosities ; and it is a well-recognized part of 

 the business of counsel to secure from among them those who may 

 have leanings toward their clients. 



Their success or otherwise in this particular is, in all cases of im- 

 portance, made the subject of the closest calculation. And a counsel 

 is not considered to have shown any marked aptitude if he has not 

 upon the jury one or more upon whose sympathies he can count. The 

 many interests of a national, religious, or friendly character which per- 

 vade all society aid in this. 



The sympathies of coreligion, copatriotism or confraternity are all 



