110
THE JURY
SYSTEM AND ITS CRITICS.
By Albert C. Applegarth, Ph.D. IF ever the history of the concluding years of the nineteenth century be im partially written, one of the chief functions of such an investigation will doubtless be to record the iconoclastic spirit unfortu nately so prevalent in our day and genera tion. No department of human knowledge enjoys immunity from the devastating at tacks of the agnostic. Unholy hands are unhesitatingly laid upon subjects the most sacred as well as the most venerated. A so-called Higher Criticism, the legitimate progeny of the pantheistic German faith and an arrant scepticism, claims to be reconstructing the Holy Evangel. In real ity, however, these efforts look rather to wards the complete demolition of the Inspired Word. Traditions in which our forefathers were reared, and in the happy possession of which they peacefully expired, are remorselessly surrendered to the Philistines. We have lived long enough to be informed that Wil liam Tell is simply a fabrication of some frenetical imagination; and the day has at last arrived when the existence of Joan d'Arc is considered chimerical, — nothing more than a mere phantasmagory. From the profundity of theology, from the delights of history, this restless spirit, this mania for reformation, — nay, rather for obliteration, — has transmigrated into the serene regions of the law. In many quarters the boisterous winds of opposition are already attempting in their wild career to annihilate institutions so dear to the hearts of those who have preceded us in the journey of life; and perhaps it may not be error to affirm that of those thus as sailed, trial by jury enjoys the distinction of being pre-eminent. The origin of this system of adjusting dis putes carries the investigator far back into
the annals of time, and eventually envelops him in the twilight of fable. Almost as far back as the history of the Germanic races extends, we discover this provision for im partiality existing in a more or less devel oped condition. Just why twelve members should have been selected as the number for a petit jury is difficult to conjecture, — cer tainly a theme upon which speculation has little or no utility. Ancient writers on juris prudence affirm, however, that the number of its components was taken from the fact that there were twelve apostles, or because the tribes of Israel were of equal numerosity. At present such teleology assumes the semblance of a mere jest; but in the days of crusaders and martyrs this derivation may have possessed more potency. At any rate, this method of essaying to determine the equity of contests held high place in the affections of our ancestors, and it has now become so deeply rooted in the foundation of all English social systems that much that is glorious and venerable clusters around it. Indeed it may be alleged, without apprecia ble error, that any attempt aimed at its de struction would be almost tantamount to an effort to reorganize our civilization. Originally, the jurors seem to have been selected from the friends of the respective litigants, and they have invariably been chosen from the locality where the individ uals reside. Owing to this circumstance, it is to be noticed, in passing, that as a rule the jury is a representative body. It is com posed of no one class; and on account of this composite character, it has the confi dence of the contestants to an extent it never could have were the members drawn exclusively from philosophers, scientists, or any other single avocation. They are, more over, selected by lot. No one can buy a position on the jury. Nor by any system
