FORMS AND FAILURES OF THE LAW 



■55 



not that the last of a dozen or twenty trials is infallible." The loni; 

 delays, extending sometimes through several generations, do more to 

 impede justice and bring odium on law and lawyer than any right 

 decision at the final end can neutralize. It has become, in the main, 

 a contest of the longest purse, and that even-handed justice should 

 suppress. And this would have happened long ago but for the 

 lawyers. 



The requirements of present laws which authorize the exclusion 

 from juries of persons who may have formed an opinion of the case 

 from newspaper reports is another absurdity. P'ew well-balanced men 

 would be influenced in a verdict by what they had read or heard be- 

 fore the trial. In some cases it would assist them in the examination 

 of witnesses, for that should be part of the duty of every intelligent 

 juror. What is wanted of a juryman is not original ignorance of the 

 case, but that cast of mind to give a verdict on the evidence presented 

 on the trial — not as presented in the newspapers. To do otherwise is 

 to restrict the choice of jurors to the most ignorant men instead of 

 the most intelligent, and to that are undoubtedly due the many mon- 

 strous verdicts which disgrace our jurisprudence. Men who do not 

 think, or read, or study, are exactly the sort of men to be led astray 

 by glib-ton gued lawyers, and made to forget the evidence and even to 

 disregard the judge's cool analysis of it. It is difficult enough for 

 twelve men of fair intelligence to reach a unanimous conclusion as 

 trials are conducted ; but for twelve ignorant men to do justice is 

 plainly absurd. The fact is recognized among laymen, but lawyers 

 are satisfied and ready to oppose change. The public see the wrong ; 

 but while the great majority of thinking people favor a thorough re- 

 form, there is in some minds a superstitious fear of attempting any- 

 thing radical so long as eminent judges or lawyers stand aloof or shake 

 their heads as if it were a sacrilege to uproot those hoary legal abuses 

 and stupidities inherited from the feudal ages. Though bad enough, 

 some of them argue that "we might get something worse," and one 

 journalist goes so far as to claim that we should be satisfied with the 

 legal status because courts of law are better, with all their imperfec- 

 tions, than to settle disputes by arms, as was the course under tribal 

 and barbaric rule ! 



But besides reforming the jury system by broadening the field of 

 selection and by accepting in many cases a verdict of two thirds or 

 three fourths, it may be reformed also as to certain cases by dispens- 

 ing with it entirely, at least in its present form. Why not have 

 trained men for jurors as well as for judges? Why is it supposed 

 that twelve men drawn at random, ignorant of law, and unused to 

 weighing evidence, will reach a just decision better than one, three, or 

 five men educated to and experienced in such work ? If some sort of 

 training and adaptation are necessary in most other pursuits, why are 

 they not in the difficult work of dispensing justice? In certain cases 



