214 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDIES 



progress of the suit to its final adjudication. It delays the determination 

 of justice by causing a new trial. If two-thirds or three-fourths of the 

 jury were able to render the verdict, it is quite likely that fewer new 

 trials would occur. There would be fewer disagreements and cases 

 would be hastened on their way to their adjudication in the higher 

 court. 



In recent years there have been a number of suits growing out of 

 elections or in other ways the result of actions of a political nature. 

 They have been cases in which the actions of a political party were 

 concerned. A verdict for the relator would in some way interfere with 

 the party's prospects of success in the next election. Juries whose 

 members have been of different political parties have often failed to 

 agree when there was a chance that the verdict would result in injury 

 to the success of the party candidate. Such was the outcome of the 

 Laingsburgh election cases in the state of New York. The trial occupied 

 thirty days and 750 witnesses were sworn, but the jury could not agree. 

 They divided on party lines, nine for the defendant and three for the 

 relator. Such has been the case with juries in other parts of the country 

 when considering similar cases. It has become the current opinion 

 that whenever there is a favorable opportunity, a jury will be very apt 

 to divide on party lines. It is clear that the disagreements that are now 

 so common in the trials of a political nature would be greatly reduced 

 if a verdict could be rendered by less than twelve of the jurymen. 



Partisans of this reform also urge that it is in no wise inconsistent 

 with the general character of the administration of justice as now carried 

 on. Inconsistencies in the judicial system are pointed out. If a per- 

 son brings a claim against a board, it is allowed or rejected by a majority 

 of the board. If he is dissatisfied with the award and takes the matter 

 into the courts, there his claim will be decided upon by the unanimous 

 verdict of twelve men. When originally presented to the board, he 

 needed to convince only a majority of its justice; now before the court 

 he must convince twelve men that he is in the right in his demands. 



It has been said that the decision of questions of law is as impor- 

 tant as the decision of questions of fact. In courts that have more than 

 one judge, questions of law are always decided by a mere majority. The 



