(^^(i THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



THE JUKY SYSTEM. 



By HENEY H. WILSON. 



THIS is an age in which ancestral faiths, traditional customs, and 

 primitive institutions alike, are receiving the attacks of icono- 

 clasts. These attacks are always vigorous, usually just, frequently 

 learned, but sometimes hasty and ill-considered. There was a time 

 when institutions which had become quite useless were still continued 

 and revered simply because they were ancient. In our day there is 

 danger that institutions whose origin, growth, and practical utility are 

 little understood may be swept away amid the general assault, merely 

 because they bear the marks of age. Institutions are not the inven- 

 tions of individuals, but are the outgrowth of the general sentiments 

 and impulses of the time and place of their origin. Every institution, 

 however absurd or worthless it may seem to us, must, at one time, 

 have supplied the actual wants of a part of the human race. It is, 

 therefore, but reasonable to presume that every institution which we 

 have inherited contains some principle that may still be useful. Be- 

 fore assuming to pass judgment upon the merits or demerits of the jury 

 as an element of our judicial system, it may, therefore, be well to 

 inquire into its distinguishing features, and to ascertain, as far as may 

 be, the origin of its several characteristics. Most prominent among 

 the peculiar features of the modern jury are — 1. That they are called 

 from the vicinage, or from a limited territory, over which the court in 

 which they sit has jurisdiction. 2. That they possess no previous 

 knowledge of the merits of the case which they are impaneled to try. 

 3. That they consist of a definite number previously determined, usu- 

 ally twelve. 4. That unanimity or consent of all is necessary to render 

 a verdict. 5. That they are chosen by lot from a certain number of 

 qualified citizens previously selected. Of these in their order let us 

 inquire the origin, growth, and present utility. 



1. When, in its earliest stages, the jury was composed of the wit- 

 nesses who knew more or less about the facts in dispute, it was natural 

 and indeed necessary to call them from the vicinity where the transac- 

 tion occurred. This reason becomes the more apparent, when it is re- 

 membered that the ordinary commercial transactions among our rude 

 ancestors were accompanied with great ceremony and publicity. For 

 example, if a man wished to go abroad to buy a horse, he must first 

 announce his intention to do so to his neighbors, and upon his return 

 he must give all the circumstances of the purchase, that the requisite 

 number of witnesses, or men who knew the facts, could be had to 

 form a jury, should his title ever be questioned. Should he fail to 

 observe these precautions, he was presumed to have stolen the horse, 

 or to have obtained it in some unlawful way.* While, in this com- 

 * Forsyth, " Trial by Jury," p. 71. 



