East gate, and as each bid is forthcoming a boy is started to run to an inn at the other end of the village, and so long as the last boy has not returned, the auctioneer continues to take bids. The last bid which is unchallenged when the last boy returns, is declared to be the rent of the field for the ensuing year, and the bidder is the tenant. When the award has been made the company adjourns to the inn and a cheese and onion lunch is provided out of the funds of the field; the balance of the money is used by trustees for the purchase of white bread, a loaf of which is left at each house in the village of Eastgate. JUST JUDGES. BY J. EDWARD Rickert, Of the Philadelphia Bar. "the silver Some years ago a most eloquent member of the Philadelphia Bar, then known as tongued orator," was sitting in one of the Common Pleas court rooms, waiting to argue a case before the court in banc. The hand in which he held his papers was observed to be trembling. "What's the matter?" he was asked. "Aren't you feeling well?" Never felt more physically fit in my life." he replied. 'But every time I am about to stand up before those men in robes I have an attack of nervousness to overcome before I am again at ease.” The law it is a fearsome thing to laymen in its toil, An ink-emitting Octopus that doth clear justice roil; And oft the green young counsellor doth stand with stricken tongue O know ye not, young counsellor, that thrice upon a day It had a mother, sir, like you;-was once a prattling child, Though sodden deep with legal lore, no man may know it all; The crow that seems immersed in thought may say no more than "Fudge!" T MODIFICATIONS OF THE JURY SYSTEM. BY JOHN BURTON PHILLIPS, Professor of Economics in the University of Colorado. HERE has always been considerable agitation against the rule that a jury should be unanimous in the verdict it renders. Emlyn in 1730 argued for the abolition of the rule. Hallam in his Middle Ages wrote against it. Bentham and Francis Lieber are also on record in favor of its abolition. But a greater name than any of these in modern jurisprudence is that of Judge Cooley. In his edition of Blackstone, he says of the jury system as far as its unit rule is concerned, that it is "repugnant to all experience of human conduct, passions and understandings." He further says that "it could hardly, in any age, have been introduced into practice by a deliberate act of the Legislature." Justice Miller of the United States Supreme Court is also on record against the unit rule. He says, "I am of opinion that the system of trial by jury would be much more valuable, much shorn of many of its evils and much more entitled to the confidence of the public, as well as of the legal and judicial minds of the country, if some number less than the whole should be authorized to render a verdict." It is peculiar that the unit rule in regard to the verdict of the jury is a thing that prevails in England and America alone. In Scotland, before 1815, a verdict could be rendered by two-thirds of the jury. The English system of unanimous verdict was introduced in 1830, but it did not give general satisfaction. In 1854 it was modified by a law which provides that a verdict by nine. jurors is sufficient after six hours' deliberation. In France the jury system was introduced in 1771, and requires only a two-thirds vote for a verdict. In Italy and Germany a majority is sufficient, and in Austria, eight of the twelve are all that are required to agree. In British India, after reasonable deliberation if six are united in their opinion and the judge agrees with them they may render a verdict. Reasonable is interpreted by the judge. In the Bahama Islands, a verdict may be rendered by two-thirds of the twelve. This is enough to show that the unit rule has been greatly modified by the countries of the old world. It has also been partly abandoned by the following American States: STATES IN WHICH VERDICTS NEED Arizona-Three-fourths in civil and misdemeanor California-Three-fourths in civil cases. C. C. P. Colorado-Three-fourths in civil cases. Kentucky-Three-fourths in civil cases. Statutes Louisiana-Three-fourths in crimes not capital. Montana-Two-thirds in crimes not felonies. Missouri-Three-fourths in courts of record: South Dakota-Three-fourths in civil cases. Ann. Washington-Ten of twelve jurors may render Some of the leading arguments for this reform of the jury system are given below. The principal one is, of course, the claim that the jury as at present constituted gives one man too much power. Everyone is familiar with instances where one man has been able to set at naught the opinions of eleven by refusing to agree with them in a jury decision. It is difficult for two men to see things alike and it is still more difficult for twelve men to come to the same conclusion. This is well known to lawyers. They have agents whose business it is to look up jurors and learn their mental characteristics and opinions on various subjects. In this way they are able to know whether or not they want these particular jurymen to sit on their cases. They know that one strongly prejudiced juror is enough to decide the case his way or else bring about a new trial by a disagreement. It has been pointed out that persons of certain nationalities are famous for seldom changing their minds. One such person on a jury is enough to make the verdict represent not so much deliberate conviction as the yielding of the others to the member of the obstinate nationality. It is claimed that the abolition of the unit rule will tend to prevent the fixing of juries. It is rare that anyone attempts to bribe more than one juror because under the present rule if one juror is bought that is all that is necessary. He will be able to bring about a disagreement. Under a rule that would allow two-thirds or three-fourths of the twelve to render a verdict, the person desiring to fix the jury would have to bribe at least three, a thing which is well nigh impossible. It is not likely that there is very much bribing of juries, but that is no reason why all temptations in that direction should not be reduced to the minimum. Everyone with experience in courts of justice knows that jury verdicts are very often not the results of the unanimous opinions of the twelve men. The verdicts are very often compromises. This is especially the case in actions for damages. Each juror has a different opinion as to the amount of money that should be paid for the wrong done. They are apt in such cases to strike an average and allow the result to stand as the verdict. It is not the opinion of anybody. Compromises sometimes occur when several persons accused of crime are tried together. There are many things which induce the jurymen to compromise. Many of the jurors are actively engaged in business and are anxious to have the court matter settled so that they may return to their homes and affairs. They are very apt, therefore, to yield a few points in order to get their liberty again. Still further the prospect of remaining all night in the juryroom is not inviting to any man. Jurymen like all other human beings are fond of the comforts of home and good quarters in which to rest for the night. They like to have their meals at regular times and places. When confronted with the alternatives of sitting up all night in the juryroom or yielding a little in what one believes is the right, most individuals, unless endowed with a constitution stronger than the majority of the race, and more firmly set in their principles, are apt to yield a little in what they think is the abstract justice of the case. Says Pope: "The hungry judges soon a sentence sign, And wretches hang that jurymen may dine." It has also been pointed out that the jury system with its unit rule puts a premium on obstinacy. The narrow-minded, obstinate and prejudiced man is given an exaggerated importance as soon as he enters the juryroom. He has made up his mind, perhaps, before the trial began, and his mental apparatus is of such a character that he cannot be persuaded by the arguments of the majority. He therefore feels his importance and will have the verdict his way or the jury will have to disagree. Cases are on record where one obstinate juror caused the disagreement and afterward went bragging about his achieve ment. Again the jurors are not all of the same vitality. An obstinate person with abounding health and strength will be able to wear out the other members of less physical endowment. It becomes a test of strength as to who can hold out longest. In such cases there is a presumption that the stronger man's influence with the jury is not measured by his intellectual capacity but by other things which are of very little value in weighing the merits and demerits of a case. The brute strength of the jurors becomes an element of great importance in their decisions. If the verdict were rendered by less than twelve, it would perhaps be rendered very soon after the jury entered the room and thus the element of brute strength would be eliminated. So also would be the now exaggerated importance of the narrow-minded and obstinate juror. It has become a common saying that the best men in the country are not now serving on the juries. It is also a fact that there is such a person as the professional juryman. He is not a high type of man in any way. The men who are the real bulwarks of our society are too busy with their business to think of spending time wrangling with the narrow-minded and obstinate as is the present requirement of the jury system. We want the best men in the community in the jury box. If we must go into the courts as many of us must sometimes do and through no fault of our own, we want our case tried by the men who have proved by their ability in the actual business world that they have good common sense. We do not want cases of great importance intrusted to a set of men like the professional jurymen of the present time, men who have never shown that they have the ability to make a living except by conniving with court officers and getting drawn as jurors. Such being the case, it is highly important that the ablest men in the community be made, in some way, to do jury duty. The exemptions from jury service at the present time are so many that almost anyone can get excused. It is indeed hard for the judge to refuse to excuse a man when he knows that the juryman cannot serve without great personal sacrifice. Even after the evidence is in and the case summed up by counsel, there is still the long wrangle in the jury room. It is possible that the abolition of the unit rule would make it likely that better men would more often consent to serve on juries than they do now. If less than twelve of the jury might render the verdict the time in the juryroom would be perhaps much cut down. No man should be excused from jury duty except for the most urgent reasons. It is a thing each citizen owes to his country to familiarize himself with the working of its administrative machinery. Nothing is so important as human rights and no one should be excused from assisting in their establish ment. Another argument in favor of the abolition of the unit rule is that it would tend to expedite appeals to the higher courts. In this way, then, the administration of justice would not be delayed. When a jury fails to agree, the only alternative is to have another trial or to drop the case. One or the other of these two things is all that is left for the parties who are trying to secure justice. It is quite common for them to resort to both alternatives. After they have exhausted their means in a new trial, they let the case drop and neither party has obtained justice. In modern practice it is very common for all cases that are of any particular importance to be carried to a higher court than the one which has the original jurisdiction. Before the case is begun both litigants have usually made up their minds not to stop till the matter is finally determined by the court of last resort. As this is the rule of modern litigation, it is of the greatest importance that as little hinderance as possible should interfere with the progress of a cause from the lower to the higher courts. Every time a jury disagrees, it is a checking of the 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 results 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 candidates. 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 then 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 person 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 ma jority 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 important as the decisions of questions of fact. In courts that have more than one judge questions of law are always decided by a mere majority. The decision is never required to be unanimous. The same thing is true of all the leading governmental actions in countries where there is government by a body of men. The policy of the government as to peace or war is not necessarily determined by more than a mere majority. It is said that unanimity is a requisite of the jury room, but of no other place in the conduct of the government. No one has advocated the abolition of the unit rule in the trial of criminal cases. It is unlikely that this rule will ever be dispensed with in such trials. In criminal cases the accused is entitled to, the presumption that he is innocent till his guilt is proven. The law requires that before he may be declared guilty, there must be in the minds of the twelve jurors no reasonable doubt of his innocence. In a civil case on the other hand, the decision is made according to the preponderance of the evidence. There may be a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, but that does not preclude them from rendering their verdict in favor of the litigant on whose side the preponderance of the evidence lies. It is therefore not so important in the civil case that there should be a unanimous verdict. It is not a matter of the guilt or innocence of anyone, but rather the determination of questions of meum and tuum. In such questions it is more important that decisions should be reached and the judicial machinery kept in operation than that abstract justice be obtained. One of the strong arguments for the unanimity rule is that it tends to emphasize the importance of the individual juror, and in this way make him more attentive to the |