69 matter to secure an amendment of the Federal Constitution, and not an easy one of a State constitution, and yet there is a growing effort to secure such amendments. Utah's constitution provides for a jury of eight, and the validity of that provision was sustained by the United States Supreme Court in Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581. But the final question is, whether it is worth while to preserve the system, even with the amendments suggested. For myself, I believe in the jury, and that it should be preserved as a factor in judicial investiga tions, and for these, among other reasons. It is a tribunal which comes into being with the occasion, and vanishes with the end of the trial. The community soon forgets who sat upon it, and there is no building up of preju dice against the individuals who composed it. How seldom do we see in the papers any complaint of the jurors who try a case, while the judge who presides at the trial is often thereafter the subject of bitter attack! Again, there are many questions whose determination cannot be according to any strict rules of measurement, and yet they must be settled. Is there any better way than, as it were, by asking the community how they should be settled? and that is done by leaving them to a jury, who, in theory at least, announce the average judgment. Take suits for personal injuries. Who shall say how much an arm or a leg is worth? An attempt to give, as judges are expected to give, reasons for fixing upon the precise amount would be futile. A jury hears the testimony, sees the injured party, and awards that which according to its combined judg ment, is fair compensation. And yet no one of the jurors might be able to figure out with
pen and pencil exactly how he reached his conclusion. So, also, there are many cases in which contradictory testimony appears, and it is a great relief to a judge, sitting from day to day, and year to year, not to have to deter mine between conflicting witnesses, nor be called upon to state which he thinks has told the truth. The jury gives no reasons, simply states its conclusions, and seldom does any witness thereafter feel that by the jury, or any particular member thereof, his testimony has been wholly disregarded, and he in ef fect branded as a perjurer. And, finally, it is of importance that the people as a whole should realize that the ad ministration of justice is a pari of their work. We cannot too often repeat the statement that if popular government is to continue, all must take an interest therein, and realize that upon each one rests some share of re sponsibility; and the administering of jus tice is one of the peculiar duties of govern ment. So there should be brought home to every individual the thought that he is per sonally responsible for the way in which jus tice is administered; and if, from time to time, he serves as a juror, he can but feel that he is partially, at least, discharging that responsibility, and is helping to secure a more perfect administration of justice in the community. There are other reasons, but the length of this article constrains me to stop. I have pointed out those which, in my judgment, render the preservation of the jury a matter of importance. Make such changes in its organization, its surround ings, and manner of work as will elevate its tone and character, while at the same time they do not destroy its essential features.
