between man and man, there are some ques tions which appear to lie beyond its prov ince. Such, for example, are the intricate and voluminous business cases that are oc casionally docketed in court. These matters require the careful, deliberate, and mature consideration that only an intelligent mind, prepared by previous training to understand the intricacies of the evidence adduced, can bring to bear upon them. It would seem only the dictate of reason, therefore, to con tend that such affairs should be tried before the court, or before a Board of Referees especially selected and qualified for this purpose. It is frequently declared, in a spirit of ridicule, that petit juries "move in a mys terious way their wonders to perform." But if a reflecting mind will pause even for a moment, the raison cFStre for these alleged anomalies is not far to seek. In the judgment of the writer, it is to be discovered principally in the provision which requires a unanimity of opinion. In capital cases such policy is doubtless a wise regula tion; but in civil actions this very stipula tion often causes an absolute reversal, or a mere travesty of justice. If a rich defend ant can secure one member of a jury, it will be impossible for the plaintiff to obtain that redress to which the equity of his suit en titles him. Or, if a juror — only one — be prejudiced against a cause, he can success fully resist all efforts at terminating the mat ter. The remedy for this evil — and few are sufficiently contumacious to deny that it is a most glaring defect — lies in so amending our present practice as to allow a case to be decided by a majority of " the gentlemen who sit in the box." But just what this number should be is a matter of detail that calls for the most elaborate consideration. It would appear, however, that the adoption of a threefourths vote would be free from any serious objection. It may be a comparatively easy matter to influence one man; but the chances of success in this direction would be im mensely diminished when you were com
pelled to arrange with three or four. With the inauguration of the proposed reform would doubtless vanish that disgraceful spectacle which at present so frequently disgusts the populace and the legal profes sion, — I mean where substantial rights are defeated because one obstinate individual refuses to modify an ill-formed, or worse, a possibly purchased opinion. The introduc tion of this innovation — to wit, a majority verdict — seems, moreover, to be the only path out of the labyrinth. Experiments in other directions have resulted in no tangible benefit. The ancient methods of incarcera tion and inanition, in particular, have failed most lamentably as well as signally. It would also have a material tendency to increase the respectability of juries, if the best as well as the average men were com pelled to serve. At present, excuses instead of reasons are received for non-attendance. For such purposes the representative per sons, those occupying the highest stations in any community, ought to be selected. Business ought not to be regarded as suffi cient ground for exemption. Under these circumstances such compulsory absence from the office or the marts of commerce would then be classified with sickness, or travel to recuperate health. In short, it would become a matter of necessity, to which submission would be made. Only, then, in cases of personal indisposition, or for some equally valid reason, should a per son be permitted to escape this duty. And the great advantage about this method of procedure would be that with its enforce ment the burden would be so diffused as to be scarcely perceptible to any individual. When we are compelled to request a hear ing in court, we all desire to have our causes fairly adjudicated. Let us then not endeavor to evade our responsibility to our fellowcitizen when the conditions are reversed. Let us rather bear in memory the injunction of the great and all-wise Judge, who com mands, " Do unto others as you would they should do unto you."
