ISfiS.] 215 [Price. 



made out as to command a unanimity of decision ; and that the plain- 

 tiff asserting a claim of property, should not disturb the existing- pos- 

 session, unless he could prove a clear and certain right to recover. 

 It is better to do nothing in a case so obscure as to leave an apparent 

 risk of doing injustice and wrong. The idea is a conservative one. 



The evils incident to jury trial, which constitute the objections 

 to it, are reasons against accepting any verdict from less than the 

 twelve. The number of twelve is so great, that it is said too much 

 to divide the responsibility, but when all must agree, each is held to 

 his full responsibility. The ignorance of jurors is so great, it is said, 

 they cannot be relied upon ; if so, then a majority vote would surely 

 be the product of that ignorance, while a unanimous vote must in- 

 clude the assent of the most intelligent. It is said different jurors 

 may proceed upon different grounds, each of which by itself would 

 be insufficient, and thus they unite upon a verdict; but a majority 

 verdict would only be so much the more likely to rest upon such in- 

 sufficient grounds, and to be carried over the heads of those who are 

 acting upon good grounds. A vicious accumulation of different mi- 

 nority views is much less likely to attain a unanimity than to attain 

 a bare majority. It is said jurors are carried away by vulgar and 

 artful advocates, who stoop to practise upon their prejudice, and that 

 large corporations, insurance offices, rich landlords, lawyers, doctors, 

 gentlemen of wealth, or unpopular persons, have little chance of jus- 

 tice with the mass of jurors ; then, that they may not suffer actual 

 wrong at their hands, it is of great importance that jurors thus sus- 

 ceptible of being swayed by prejudice, should be required to be 

 unanimous, by which all the dispassionate conservatism to be found 

 in the twelve will be obliged to concur in the verdict. And against 

 the wilful or erroneous action of the jui-y from the objected liability 

 to bias and prejudice, the power of the court to set aside verdicts is 

 readily exercised to prevent injustice. As the jury in criminal cases 

 is the antagonistic power, to bold in check judges, when too closely 

 sympathizing with an arbitrary executive, so is the court the supervis- 

 ing power, to correct the excesses of the jury. It results, that causes 

 are tried hy Judges and jury. And though there be evils and incon- 

 veniences incident to this, as to all other human institutions, and it 

 affords but an approximation to perfect justice, it is believed to be, 

 for the causes to be tried, and the other purposes of its creation, the 

 most perfect and safe that human experience and wisdom have de- 

 vised. In the unhistorical period that preceded the Christian era, 

 it had its beginning, and ever since has had its growth, and by 



