FORMS AND FAILURES OF THE LAW. 753 



a system of deciding law questions speedily and cheaply it might 

 lead to a greater volume of business, promote the ends of justice far 

 better, and elevate the profession immeasurably in public esteem. 

 Even if the reforms would dispense with one half or two thirds of 

 all the lawyers, and who may be said to be non-producers of public 

 wealth, it would not be a reform that really high-minded and con- 

 scientious lawyers need regret. A country like ours should not toler- 

 ate any parasitic classes ; and, once rid of all the useless lawyers, the 

 reform would make some other classes useful whose presence now is 

 detrimental to the public good. 



Let us look at some of the changes for which public sentiment 

 seems ready, and which would certainly be inaugurated soon if a 

 liberal-minded bench and the more honorable members of the bar 

 were to sanction them. They are noted here, not so much in the 

 order of their importance, as in the order in which they come to 

 mind. 



First, the jury system. There is wide-spread dissatisfaction with 

 it, especially as to capital cases, or where heavy punishment is in- 

 volved. In important civil cases where great interests are at stake, 

 it is also regarded very much as a failure, leading nearly as often to 

 the miscarriage of justice as otherwise. The traditions that require 

 unanimous verdicts are antiquated and unworthy of serious considera- 

 tion. "Why should twelve men, totally untrained in the examination 

 of legal questions or evidence, be expected to agree, in the face of a 

 mass of contradictory evidence, and after listening for hours, or 

 even days and weeks, to the arguments of counsel skilled in making 

 the worse appear the better reasoning, and without a scrap of written 

 or printed testimony before them ? Two witnesses to the same trans- 

 action can rarely agree as to details, and yet a jury of twelve men, 

 some of them very ignorant, are required to agree, or else the case, in 

 all its dreary length and breadth, must be tried again before twelve 

 other men equally unfit, or be abandoned. If they do not agree on 

 the first ballot, they are kept in confinement until the strongest-willed 

 can conquer the rest, or until their natural desire for a discharge 

 impels them to agree, whether the verdict represents their real con- 

 victions or not. It is right that, in capital cases at least, there should 

 be a heavy preponderance, but to require unanimity is absurd, and 

 often defeats justice. If eight or nine men out of twelve can agree 

 that a prisoner is guilty, it should be suflicient, especially while all 

 the chances for appeals and pardons remain. Were the verdict a 

 finality, it would be different ; but no convicted murderer with money 

 at his command ever thinks of submitting at once to an adverse ver- 

 dict. The criminal laws seem specially contrived to shield notorious 

 villains from swift punishment ; and the " able counsel," no matter 

 what his case, keeps up the fight until every resource for delay or 

 escape is exhausted. 



VOL. XXill. — 48 



