IMAGE EVALUATION 
 FEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 11.25 
 
 L&|2£ 121 
 
 |50 ^^~ ■■H 
 
 ^ i2ii 12.2 
 
 
 SI 
 
 u 
 
 i; 
 
 LS 12.0 
 
 ifi. 
 
 \A. 11116 
 
 I 
 
 .^^ 
 
 
 7] 
 
IV 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions 
 
 Institut Canadian da microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical Notes / Notes techniques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Physical 
 features of this copy which may alter any of the 
 images in the reproduction are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6x6 possible de se procurer. Certains 
 d^fauts susceptibles de nuire A la quality de la 
 reproduction sont not6s ci-dessous. 
 
 El 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvertures de couleur 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Coloured plates/ 
 Planches en couleur 
 
 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d^color^es, tachetdes ou piqudes 
 
 
 
 Show through/ 
 Transparence 
 
 
 
 Tight binding (may cause shadows or 
 distortion along interior margin)/ 
 Reliure serrd (peut causer de I'ombre ou 
 de la distortion le long de la marge 
 int6rieure) 
 
 D 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires 
 
 Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Pagination incorrect/ 
 Erreurs de pagination 
 
 Pages missing/ 
 Des pages manquent 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Plates missing/ 
 
 Des planches manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Maps missing/ 
 
 Des cartes g^ographiques manquent 
 
 n 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires supplAmentaires 
 
Th0 images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les Images suivantes ont 6t« reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet« de I'exemplaire film«. et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 fllmage. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall 
 contain the symbol —^> (meaning CONTINUED"), 
 or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever 
 applies. 
 
 The original copy was borrowed from, and 
 filmed with, the kind consent of the following 
 institution: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 IVIaps or plates too large to be entirely included 
 in one exposure are filmed beginning in the 
 upper left hand corner, left to right and top to 
 bottom, as many frames as required. The 
 following diagrams illustrate the method: 
 
 Un des symboles sulvants apparaftra sur la der- 
 nlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: 
 le symbole — ► signifle "A SUIVRE". le symbols 
 V signifle "FIN". 
 
 L'exemplaire film« fut reproduit grAce d la 
 g6n6ro8it6 de I'^tablissement prAteur 
 suivant : 
 
 La bibliothAque des Archives 
 publlques du Canada 
 
 Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour dtre 
 reproduites en un seui clichA sont fiim6ns d 
 partir de Tangle supArieure gauche, de gauche d 
 droite et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Le diagramme suivant 
 illustre la mAthode : 
 
 Ji 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 
3 
 
Tt:EiFCDTi/J? 
 
 — ON TByc — 
 
 TTT^-Sr S"SrSTE^^ 
 
 — BY — 
 
 H. J. CLORAN, Esq. 
 
 PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 
 
 QUEBEC 
 
 1890. 
 

 To 
 
 J- 1 ^^'^^ 
 
 -) K <\ 
 
 Cl'^ 
 
 trea 
 Seci 
 
If imi.uwui 
 
 RETURN 
 
 (Wo. 71) 
 
 * 
 
 To AN Order of the Legislative Assembly, dated the 20th January 
 1890, for: • ^ ^' 
 
 Copies of correspondence, etc., on the subject of the payment aud 
 
 treatment of jurors in criminal cases. 
 
 j 
 
 Secretary's Office, 
 
 Quebec, 2'7th. January, 1890. 
 
 (Signed), CHS. A. ERN. GAGNON, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
II 
 
 Quebec, 24th. January 1890. 
 
 Ph. J. JoUC(EUR, Esq , 
 
 Asst. Pro.-Secretary. 
 
 Sir -I have the honor to forM'ard you the Return to an address of 
 the Legislative. Assembly, dated the 20th. January instant, for copies of 
 letters, instructions etc., respecting the choice, organization and salary ot 
 jurors, etc.. etc , undtn- the present system. 
 
 In this return is included that to an order of the House, also dated 
 the 20th. January instant, resjiectirig the payment and maintenance ot 
 jurors in criminal matters. 
 
 I have the honor to be, 
 Sir, 
 ;'j * ' : Yotir <)bedient' servant, 
 
 (Signed), Jos. A. DEt'oV', 
 
 ,, Asst. Atty.-Gen. 
 
 ■ i'' .* * , . 
 
 [A true copy] 
 
 Ph. J. Jglicceur, 
 
 Asst. Secretary. 
 
Ill 
 
 SOPPLEMEJITAIIY KIPORT. 
 
 (Wo. -71) 
 
 ■ J V . 
 
 To AN ORDER of tjie 
 
 ibr : 
 
 Legislative Assiembly, da,ted the 20 Jaiiuary 1890. 
 
 Copies of correspondence, etc., on the 8u.bject of the pjayment of 
 Jurors in Criminal Cases. ' ' " 
 
 Secretary's oiTioe, 
 
 Quebec, 2t March, 1890. 
 
 (Sigijed). 
 
 
 ■y- 'M«.v-.-.', 
 
IV 
 
 UNANIMITY AND REDUCTION OF THE JURY 
 
 u 
 
 There are two features of the English Jury system in criminal mat- 
 ters which modern legislation has left undisturbed, viz : — the number 
 which constitutes the petty Jury and the requirement of unanimity on 
 ihe part of the twelve petty jurors to find a verdict. It is true that in 
 ■ome of the States and Provinces, the statutes provide that in civil actions, 
 a verdict may be rendered by a lesser number than the w^hole of the jury 
 and also in minor criminal cases tried before courts not of record or 
 inferior courts ; the law of certain other States has provided for a reduc- 
 tion of the number of petty jurors to six. 
 
 But, as a general rule, no sustained effort, has up to the present been 
 made by any legislature io bring about a radical reform in either direc- 
 tion. A Bill was introduced as far back as the year 1183, in the State 
 Legislature of Ohio, seeking to abolish the requirement of unanimity 
 and providing that the agreement of the two thirds majority of the jury 
 should be sufficient for a verdict ; a similar bill was also introduced into 
 the Legislature of Pennsylvannia, but neither was adopted. It cannot be 
 denied, however, that opinion is universally opposed to a change. 
 
 The eminent jurists and authorities whose views have been obtained 
 on the subject are pretty evenly divided on the question of unanimity, 
 -while but few favor the reduction of the petty jury. Unanimity is not 
 required in the jury system of France, fermany and Italy nor of any 
 other country, save of England and her colonies and of the United States. 
 A commission was appointed in England in 1830 to report upon the 
 courtB of common laws. The rule requiring unanimity was discussed by 
 the commission and in their report they stated it is difficult to defend 
 the justice or wisdom of it. They propose that the jury be kept together 
 tv^relve hours, and if, at the end of that time, nine jurors agree, that this 
 shall be received as the verdict. This suggestion of the commission has 
 been allowed to lie dormant ever since and there is apparently no effort 
 macle'to act upon it. 
 
 In stating his views on the subject, Chs. C. Bonney ex-President of 
 the Bar Association of Illinois, etc, says : — " I have a very decided con- 
 viction that two thirds or three fourths of the Jury should be permitted 
 to return a verdict both in civil and criminal cases. A majority of judges, 
 is the highest courts, such as the Supreme Conrts, may give judgment and 
 
v^ 
 
 it seems tome the same principle would authorize a majority verdict of the 
 jury. 
 
 It is also urged by advocatc^s of a majority verdict that the result of 
 such a change would be to lessen crime, for if nine could convict where 
 it now requires twelve, the knowledge of this fact would have the effect 
 to discourage and restrain vice. Others hold that the verdict of the Jury 
 ought not to depend on the opinion or the obstinacy and corruption of 
 one or two men. Tnder the present system one man has too much power 
 and they object to a crank being allowed to cause a disagreement or a 
 mis-trial. 
 
 According to W. W. Thornton of Indiana, the evil results arising from 
 the law requiring a unanimous verdict are far greater than one allowing a 
 majority verdict ; he says : — " Verdicts in close cover are nearly always the 
 result of compromise : they are nothing more than a ma,jority verdict. It 
 is contrary to human experience that twelve men should agree upon a 
 debatable question drawn in issue, and why it should be required in the 
 trial of any case, taking my experience of the world, is shrouded in half 
 a mystery. Questions of great moment are decided by a m.ijority rule. 
 Laws are enacted by a majority affecting the welfare of millions ofpeople ; 
 the vote of one in several hundred representatives of the people 
 
 even 
 
 may determine what they shall be. War involving the lives and pro- 
 perty of millions may be so determined upon. In 1876 one vote in the 
 electoral college elected a president of the United States. Why then 
 should the life, liberty and property of one individual require a more 
 certain result than that of millions. I do not believe that the chances of 
 convicting an innocent person would be materially increased Plowever 
 not less than nine should join in the verdict. A majority verdict would 
 greatly avoid the possibility of padding the jury in the interests of the 
 accused or of allowing an obstinate juror to bring about a disagreement. 
 In the opinion of others the growing dissatisfaction towards the jury 
 system is to be attributed to the rule requiring unanimity for a verdict. 
 Honorable S. G. W. Benjamin, Ex-U. S. Minister to Persia, says : " That 
 the time for a change has come unlessa means is found for the more swift 
 land certain operation of Justice under the majesty of constituted autho- 
 Irity, the tendency to seek justice by illegal methods is likely to become 
 [even more rife than it is now. Why then should not tha p3tit jury system 
 [be modified both to allay this popular disconstent and the more effectually 
 [to further the ends of Justice. Progress implies not only the application 
 [of new means to the machinery of social order. It also includes the read- 
 
n 
 
 '■U 
 
 I 
 
 justmciit of old rn«!thods t<) new conditions. There is nothinj? to indicate 
 thai Irial by .jury has yet crystaliz«^d into a comphited shape. 
 
 Unknown to Asiati<i races it only reached the i)rosent sta^'o of deve- 
 lopment in En<iland in the sixteenth centnry and after a lon^ evolution, 
 and since that period the principle of nnanimity in a verdict has been 
 abolished in Scotland without injuricnis results. 
 
 The ideal jury should represent the opinion of the puV)lic supposing 
 the public to be thoroujLrhly inl'orrned concerning the law and the facts 
 in a case. lUit if the public were to decide upon such complete informa- 
 tion, it is altoircthor unlikely that the verdict would be always unani- 
 mous. 
 
 AVhy then recpiire such unanimity IVoni its representative,^, the jury ? 
 In spite of their unanimity many verdicts have proved to be notoriously 
 unjust. AVould they have been more unjust if decided by a majority of 
 the jurors alone ? As the matter now staiuls justice may be and often is, 
 traversed by a sini>le stupid or perjured juror. 
 
 The verdict of eleven out of twelve jurors should be required in 
 awarding a cajiital conviction when the case turns solely on circumstan- 
 tial evidence, nine should sxilfice in other cases involving the capital 
 penalty, and eight in all other trials by jury, whether in criminal or 
 ci\ il actions." 
 
 The arguments of the advocates of a change in this time honored 
 feature of the jury system are thus briefly but fairly stated in their own 
 words. On their la-e they are ex(--eedingly plausible ; they carry consi- 
 derable weight aiul if no contrary considerations were entertained they 
 would a]>parently justify a legislative enactment to abolish the ancient 
 rule requiring unanimity of the jury to liiul a verdict. It is asked why 
 should not a majority of the jurors be allowed to decide the question of 
 the guilt or innocen«'e ol accv sed persons, since a majority of judges are 
 allowed to determine questions of law and the rights of litigants. Well, 
 the fact of a majoi'ity of judges being allowed to settle legal points and 
 determine legal riijhts, for or against the plaintiff is no proof of the 
 absolute wisdom such a rule and is no guarantee that the decision of | 
 the majoritc of.jiulges is correct beyond a doubt, or does equal justice toi 
 both parties in the suit. The court records of this country and of the 
 United States amply testify to the fact that judges not only differ but 
 that majority decisions of judgt^s are frequently upset by another majority 
 of judges in higher courts until a quietus is put upon judicial eyolutipnj 
 by the English Privy Council or by the Supreme Court of the pnitedl 
 
 J:! 
 
vn 
 
 States ; and it i« safe to add that if an appeal lay from either of these 
 supreme hodit^s lo still liiuher courts, their decisions Nvould not always 
 remain inviolate and inviolahle. 
 
 NoAV, if a decision of the mnjorily of judges, Irained and learned in 
 the law, are liable and suliject lo such tr;insiorni:ilion at the hands of 
 another majority of judges, in the higher courts, we -M-k in turn would it 
 be advisable to submit ([uesUons involvin<i' the liberty and life of a citizen 
 to a tribunal when a majority voice would prevail. If a majority of able 
 and skilled judges can err, as they fretjuently do, what would not be the 
 possibility of error on the j)art of a tribunal comjjosed oi' honest, if you 
 will, but of ordinary and unskilled nun. And consider the injury and 
 iujus ice that would be perpetrated in the name of the State on account 
 of such erroneous verdict. Unlike, in civil oases, where the unsuccessful 
 litigant has the right to try and have the decision of the majority ofjudiu,fl8 
 reversed, the convicted person is at once deprived of his liberty and is 
 made to sufier death without any alternative, for prai^tically there lies no 
 appeal from a jury verdict on the main question of the guilt or innocence 
 of the accused. 
 
 One of the strongest arguments to our mind, in favor of the rule 
 requiring unanimity, is the fact that the records of English, American and 
 Canadian Courts can recount ])ut few instarices where unanimous ver- 
 dicts haA'e been set aside on the ground of error or injustice. 
 
 It is a striking tribute to the wisdom of this feature of the jury sys- 
 tem and to the general correctness and justice of jury verdicts to have 
 the highest courts, in nearly all cases, maintain the decision arrived at 
 by a unanimous jury. In civil courts errors, even by a majority of judges, 
 can be rendered andjvistice can be eventually obtained if one, besides 
 having a good case, live long enough and has wealth enough to prose- 
 it to the end. In criminal Courts, errors of the jury would, in a majority 
 of cases, be fatal, if not to the liberty and life of the accused, at least to 
 his honor and reputation. 
 
 If doubt and error are allowed to fill a role in civil courts. They 
 should be strictly guarded against in criminal courts. And we consider 
 the greatest protection and best safeguard against doubt and error to be 
 the rule requiring unanimity. But we are told that this rule sometimes 
 prevents the conviction of really guilty persons, by allowing one are two 
 jurors who, through obstinacy, crankness or even bribery hold out 
 against decisions of the remainder of the jury, to bring about a jnistrial. 
 True, it is not denied t) ^ch cases do happen ; but v/hat should be 
 
tangMK-araiB.'Mfc-jai 
 
 VIII 
 
 equally borne in mind m that the administration of justice is not only 
 bound to seek to convict the guilty, but it also bound to offer protection 
 to the innocent and not jeopardize the life and liberty of the citizen. 
 
 Would it de a full measure of protection to the citizen to allow a 
 majority instead of the unanimous vote of the jury to decide his guilt or 
 innocence and determine his late ? Certainly not. Now, if it is desirable 
 to punish the guilty, it is on the other hand necessary not to run any 
 risk of punishing the innocent ; and it cannot be denied that to substi- 
 tute the rule of unanimity for one only requiring a rnajority, whether it 
 be a simple or a two thirds one, would be to very seriously increase the 
 risk of enforcing the law against innocent parties. As the distinguished 
 jurist Proftat remarks. 
 
 It is claimed, as each member of the jury is sworn to declare the 
 truth according to his conscience, that a single member, if conscientiously 
 impressed with a view of a state of facts different from the others, is as 
 much entitled to have that view considered as the view of the majority. 
 That, when unanimity is required, the facts in a case are more thoroughly 
 and fully investigated with the view of bringing this unanimity about ; 
 for if a mere majority are agreed at the first consultation, there would be 
 no necessity to deliberate and reason together with the view of making 
 a unanimous verdict. When a unanimous verdict is required, each mem- 
 ber however insignificant, has a right to explain his views and to compel 
 the majority to listen to them, for, it has well been said, truth is established 
 by investigation and delay, but falsehood prospers by precipitancy ; 
 that the verdict of twelve men, if rationally obtained, is more likely to be 
 correct than that of nine out of twelve. It is calculated on the doctrine 
 of probabilities that the probability of error in a verdict, where a majo- 
 rity of nine out of twelve is sufficient for a decision, is about one to 
 twenty-two ; while if unanimity is exacted it is one to eight thousand ; 
 that a decision of twelve men when unanimous, will command more 
 respect and weight than nine out of twelve or than decision of a more 
 majority. 
 
 It is a safe and a most valuable principle in criminal law before a 
 person should be convicted, of an offence and be deprived of the most 
 sacred rights that man can enjoy, life and liberty, there should be proof 
 of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ; and if when the facts in evidence 
 are placed before twelve men, who, we must presume, are conscientious, 
 a single one of them has a doubt of a person's guilt this ought to be suf- 
 ficient to present a conviction. It is true there may be a possibility of 
 
IX 
 
 corruption and a failure of justice, but better a thousand times this thtin 
 that any one should he unjustly stigmatized and punished with ignominy 
 as a criminal. 
 
 There is no doubt as Chief Justice Andrews of Connecticut stated to 
 your commissioner that the minority of a jury by its firmness has prevent 
 ed a bad verdict fully as often as any minority by its obstinacy has pre- 
 vented a good one. Those who criticise the requirement forget the former 
 and animadvert only on the latter. 
 
 After a fair and f-'l discussion of the arguments pro and con, I can 
 come to no other conclusion than that the rule requiring unanimity should 
 be retained in criminal cases on the ground that the requirement of 
 unamity compels reflexion and deliberation on the part of the jury before 
 reaching a verdict ; gives their decisions a weight and stability which 
 they would not otherwise have ; secures justice for the accused and 
 pffers protection to the innocent. 
 
REPORT ON THE JURY SYSTEM 
 
 Report on the Joey System in Criminal Matters. 
 
 To the Honorable 
 
 ARTHUR TURCOTTE, 
 
 Attorney-General for the 
 
 Province of Quebec. 
 Sir, 
 
 Your Commissioner, having on the third day of October, eighteen 
 hundred and eighty nine, received instrnctions to make an official trip 
 through Ontario, Manitoba and the United States to study the legal and 
 practical aspect of the jury system in criminal matters, to take the text 
 of the law in every case and gather all other information as to facts and 
 to furnish the Government with a complete report of everything that came 
 under his observation, in order to enable it to make any chano-es that 
 maybe deemed advisable in the actual system, respectfully begs to 
 submit the following report, as the result of his enquiry. 
 I have the honor to be. Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient servant, 
 
 H. J. Cloran, 
 
 Tir , , „ - Commissioner. 
 
 Montreal, Feb. 1890. 
 
T' T'liTnTTS: 
 
 "-'•~~'''''''"" TITfllHI ITTIU- » I 
 
 ■•ij 
 
 T] 
 
 
 A] 
 
 ti 
 
 (I 
 t( 
 II 
 II 
 
 u 
 It 
 
 Art 
 
 -I 
 
 ^ 
 
G03iTTE2^T 
 
 THE JURY SYSTIM IN CEIMINAL MA7TBES, 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 Complaints against the working of the jury system. 
 
 Art. 
 
 Art, 
 
 Art. 
 
 1. Memorial and Petition of Montreal Jurors. 
 
 2. Official Correspondence. 
 
 3. Criticisms from the Public Press. 
 
 CHAPTER 2. 
 The Petit Jury. 
 
 1. Trial by jury in the Province of Quebec. 
 
 2. Qualifications of Jurors. 
 
 3. Exemptions. 
 
 4. Selection of Jurors. 
 
 5. Drawing of the Panel. 
 
 6. Publicity of the Panel. 
 
 •7. Summoning of Jurors and Talesmen. 
 
 8. Treatment and remuneration of Jurors. 
 
 9. Freedom of the Jury. 
 
 10. Unanimity and Reduction of the Jury. 
 
 11. Penalties and fines fixed by the Jury. * 
 
 CHAPTER 3. 
 The Grand Jury. 
 
 1. Objections to the Grand Jury. 
 
 2. The Grand Jury a protection to the citizen. 
 
 3. The Grand Jury an educator of the People. 
 
 4. The duties of Grand Jurors. 
 
 5. The number of Grand Jurors. 
 
 6. Organization of the Grand Jury. 
 
CHAPTER 4. 
 Opinions l-sd Experience o^ Authorities. 
 
 Art. 1. Of trial by Jury. 
 '« 2. Of the Qualifioatioti and Treatment of Jurors. 
 " 3. Of the Freedom of the Jury. 
 " 4. Of the Unanimity and Reduction of the Jury. 
 5. Of the role of the Orand Jury. 
 
 CHAPTER 5. 
 
 ii 
 
 Summary of Statutes governing the Jury system. 
 
 Art. 
 
 1, 
 
 o 
 
 3. 
 4. 
 
 The Jury law of Massachusetts. 
 The jury law of Kentucky. 
 The jury law of "Wisconsin. 
 The jury law of Connecticut. 
 
 6. The jury law of Illinois. 
 
CHTJ^ieTJBR; I. 
 
 COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE WORKING OF THE JURY SYSTEM. 
 
 Art. I. Memorial and Petition of Montreal Jurors. 
 
 • 
 
 To the HONORABLE A. TURCOTTE, Attorney-General, as representing 
 the Judicial Department of Her Majesty's Government of the Pro- 
 vince of Quebec. 
 
 This memorial presented by the undersigned, by authority and ou 
 behalf of the second panel of Petit Jurors in attendance at the court of 
 Queen's Bench in Montreal, between the 14th and 25th September 1889, 
 loyal subjects of Her Majesty, humbly representeth : 
 
 That according to existing laws Petit Jurors are a necessity in the 
 administration of justice in this Province : 
 
 That in their attendance upon their duties as Petit Jurors, respec- 
 table members of the community are called upon to devote considerable 
 time and to sacrifice much personal and business convenience : 
 
 That under presently existing arrangements made for Petit Jurors at 
 the Court House in Montreal, they have further to undergo and to sub- 
 mit to what, in the opinion of your memorialists, is positive and unne- 
 cessary discomfort while so engaged, and your memorialists from their 
 personal experience, respectfully state, that the provision made for jurors 
 in the matter of accommodation is insufficient and in some other respects 
 is an indignity upon respectable members of the community. 
 
 Your memorialists, therefore, crave the attention of Her Majesty's 
 Provincial Government to this subject, and ask leave to submit the attach- 
 ed memorandum embodying what reforms are, in their humble opinion, 
 necessary at the Montreal Court House, for the comfortable accommoda- 
 tion of Petit Jurors. 
 
 In submitting these representations, your memorialists beg to add, 
 that they are made, not only with a view to the removal of grievances 
 now felt ; but, also, in the interests of the administration of justice, which 
 the presently existing state of things is calculated to hinder, by prevent- 
 
B 
 
 lii.i 
 
 m 
 
 iug a cheerful attendance on their duties on the part of the Jurors sum- 
 moned for the sittings of the Court. 
 
 And Your memorialists v.'ill ever piay. 
 
 Signed at Montreal, this second day of October 1889, by us as repre- 
 senting the ijluglioh and French speaking- Jurors before mentioned res- 
 pectively. 
 
 J. Kennedy, 
 
 A. Racicot,. 
 Addresses of Petitioners, 
 
 John Kennedy, Fire Insuronce Manager, 
 
 4t, St. Francis-Xavier Street, Montreal. 
 
 Antoine Racicot, Chemist, etc., 
 338, Craig St. Montreal. 
 
 MEMORANDUM RE PETIT JURORS AT MONTREAL COURT HOUSE. 
 
 1.— Jury rooms: 
 
 For accommodation the Petit Jurors are now allowed one ordinary- 
 sized room for all the purposes of a Deliberating or Sitting Room, Reading 
 Room, Smoking Room, Dining Room and Dressing Room. No special 
 sleeping apartment is provided, but Jurors detained over-night spend the 
 night in oots in the corridors of the adjoining Court Room, or in the 
 room above mentioned. 
 
 Your memorialists are of opinion that three rooms, one as a Sitting 
 Room, one as a Dining Room, one as a Sleeping Room (large and suitably 
 furnished) are requisite for proper and comfortable accommodation to 
 Jurors and their attendants, together with suitably placed Lavatory, 
 Bath & W. C. The present Lavatory and Closet arrangements are offen- 
 sive, when it is considered that they are removed but a few feet from 
 where the Jurors ht ^e to eat and spend a large part of their time. 
 
 2. — Other provision. 
 
 Ea ;h meal served to Jurymen by the contracting caterer, should 
 be required to be furnished with decently clean table linen and accom- 
 panied by sufficient tableware and cutlery for the dishes provided, and 
 as regards victuals, the individual taste of Jurors might be consulted and 
 
met when reasonable : for instance, tea, coffee and milk might form part 
 of each meal, instead of coffee alone as a beverage for breakfast and 
 dinner, and tea only for supper — milk never being provided, at present, 
 at any meal for refreshment. The attendants r^iould not occupy the 
 same table with Jurors but ought to wait upon them. 
 
 Besides the want of suitable quarters before alluded to, the present 
 sleeping arrangements are a matter of great discomfort. Each juror 
 detained over-night is proA'-ided with a common cot, a mattress, one pillow 
 a coarse double horse blanket, a pillow cover and a cotton sheet. In 
 addition to the cot and mattress, each bed should be supplied with two 
 pillows and a good double blanket with bed quilt, as well as be provided 
 with clean linen o i each occasion of a change of occupant, instead of 
 only one chanrfe of linen for indiscriminate use during the who'e term 
 of the Court. Under present arrangements Jurors are virtually compelled 
 to sleep in their clothes. As scarcely a teria passes without Jurors having 
 to spend several days and nights continuously in the building, a very 
 proper and inexpensive provision for their comfort would be a bathroom. 
 
 The want of some literature to relieve the tedium of confinement is 
 also felt, aTid a small selection of entertaining volumes in both our lan- 
 guages, placed in the sitting room would be highly esteemed, as well as 
 a supply of writing materials. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 J. Kennedy, 
 A. Racicot. 
 
 . II 
 
 Art. II. — Ofb'icial Correspondence. 
 
 Montreal. Sept. 25, 1889. 
 
 Ml/ Dear Honors, 
 
 I enclose to you a correspondence which has appeared in the " Star " of 
 Saturday last, dealing with the treatment of petit jurors and signed 
 " Juryman." 
 
 I have read it attentively and I believe, as they say in English. 
 " that there is more truth than poetry." And these complaints are often 
 renewed and ean be traced to the charge of either the Government or of 
 its employees. I believe that the fault lies in the system which is adopted 
 for the treatment of the jury when they are locked up. I think it my 
 duty to say a word to you about it for I believe that if we can not eradi- 
 
I1i 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 cate the evil entirely, at least we can remedy it in part. The principle 
 cause of the complaint of the petit jury generally comes from the manner 
 in which their meals are served and it is difficult to render the services 
 belter ; when the dishes have to bo carried from the restaurant to the 
 Court House everything gets cold, and with the best attention possible 
 they often forget to send everything that is necessary, 
 
 "Why cannot you do here as is done in certain cities of the United 
 States, send the jurors to take their meals in a Hotel or Restaurant under 
 the guard of a sufficient number of guardians, and in a room reserved 
 for them ; that would not, cost more and perhaps less. You would there- 
 by put an end to their complaints so often repeated habituallv. I do not 
 kuow your laws and I ignore if they would allow the jury to go out, as 
 I have just suggested, but the idea would perhaps be worth the trouble 
 of investigatinar. But as long as the room in the Court House will be as 
 Hmited as it now is, it will be impossible for you to give better accommo- 
 dation to the Jury ; but it is a fact beyond dispute that it must be very 
 disagreable, for those who are obliged to serve, to be locked up in a 
 room 60 small and to be obliged to use it for the purpose of deliberating 
 eating, smoking, and sleeping. I believe that we could easily avoid the 
 useless expenditure regarding the visit of the Grand Jury to the St. Vin- 
 cent de Paul penitentiary and to other places four times a year and appl j 
 a part of the $136.00 and $150.00, which each of those visits cost, to the 
 better accommodation and treatment of the Jury when it is locked up. 
 These are suggestions which I beg permission to make to you and I 
 believe that if you succeeded in ameliorating the situation you would 
 render not only a great service to persons who are obliged to serve as 
 Jurors but that this revelation would be very acceptable to the public. I 
 wrote to the Honorable Attorney General on the subject of this expense 
 occasioned by the visit of the Grand Jury, on the 15th day of Juna last ; 
 If you ask to see this letter you will see therein another objection and 
 scandal to which I drew the attention of the Attorney General. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 Joseph A. Mercier. 
 
 Art. III. — Criticisms from the Public Press. 
 (From the " Montreal Daily Star " ) 
 
 A Petit Juryman describes the Jury's treatment. During his term of 
 'service thoroughly disgusted with his surroundings. A dining, sitting, 
 an^d sleeping room 
 
 •«»rl>«em ?"«•■-' 
 
9 
 
 Sir :— Having been summoned to serve on the first panel of petit 
 jurors for the opening of the Queen's Bench tern? the second of this 
 month, and notwithstanding that I offered to make affidavit of having 
 served over seven years in the active militia (volunteers) of my country ; 
 besides holding a military school certificate, the sheriff refused them as 
 not being sufficient, and I had no alternative but to serve, as I then 
 thought ; but since I have learned that for a paltry fine of HO, you need 
 not put in an appearance, at least that was all the fine for those who 
 did not obey the summons. This was the first time I ever had the mis- 
 fortune to be called upon to perform that duty, feeling in the innocence 
 of my heart that having served my country from the time of the Trent 
 affair as a volunteer down to the battle of Ilidgeway, and finally closing 
 my service by passing the military school at Toronto, so far as Petit or 
 Grand Jury service was concerned I was exempt, but I have now chang- 
 ed my mind, as it appears that one must produce a written discharge 
 and the length of service from the company or batallion in which such 
 service took place, and the tim. must be seven years or over. However 
 finding so far as I knew then, that there was no alternative but to 
 submit to the inevitable, I did so with the best grace possible, and at 
 10 a. m. ou Tuesday, September 10th. until Friday at 8.30 p. m. we were 
 prisoners in almost eviry sense of the word except mentally. 
 
 No communication from the outside world and no knowledge of any- 
 thing transpiring ; no news, " no nothing, " except what we could see 
 and hear during the trial. To this as an old disciplinarian, I could not 
 object in the slightest, and if all jurors are as carefulb'' watched as we 
 were, so much the better for all concerned. The officer, Constable Heagen, 
 in charge of the jury day and night, deserves the greatest praise for his 
 kindness to the jury in every possible way that his official duty would 
 permit ; at the same time not relaxing his vigilance or a moment, as well 
 as those assisting him in his temporary absence. At 4 p. m. on Tuesday, 
 at the adjournment of the court, we were ordered to go to the jury room, 
 there, to all intents and purposes, so far as any other special provision 
 has been made, to remain till ten p. m. the next morning, eighteen hours. 
 On entering this room for the first time the rank, not to s.iy sickening* 
 odor was like that one gets by the accidental overturning of a long used 
 spittoon, and virtually that was what it was, for the next day, on making 
 inquiries I learned that this room, about twenty feet square, had been 
 occupied by the previous jury for two days and nights as the dining, I 
 should say " eating " room, and smoking room, and sleeping room, and 
 had not even been swept out, and in a similar manner had to be us^ 
 
10 
 
 ivli, 
 
 m 
 
 h*f 
 
 hik, 
 
 by ourselves. Now, as there were no spittoons that I could see, the floor 
 \vas the rccepta ?le of all expectorations, half burnt matches, ashes and 
 tobacco from pipes and cigars, as, with one exception, all were smokers. 
 Our first meal was dinner, and the bill of faro as follows, brought into the 
 room in a large clothes basket by those in charge for that purpose and 
 duly sworn by the dork of the court, viz : Boefsieak badly cooked, on two 
 large plates, very little gravy, and no spoon whatever to servo it up : 
 there were potatcos in a semi-mashed state, served on two soup plates, also 
 without spoons, and the order was every man for himself, stick in your 
 fork and fish out a piece of meat, and ditto for potatoes. 
 
 The tea was brought in a large five gallon stone jar, and from this 
 poured into a pitcher, and from which those who could drink it (always 
 cold) were served, and the same with cofl'eo alternating with tea, never 
 both at same or any meal. 
 
 The butter at this meal was served in a pewter dish and was simply 
 uneatable, and sickening to look at. Broad was good and plenty of it : 
 the teaspoons were those you can buy for five cents a dozen, tin, and 
 half rusty at that, anrl .uly one each ; no other kind of spoon whatever 
 was on the table, not • ,en in the sugar-bowl, nor was there any milk 
 whatever. This was mixed with the tea or coffee in the stone jar before 
 it reached us, and those who wanted a glass of water had to confine them- 
 selves to one single tumbler, take a drink and pass it along. There was 
 at this meal also a blueberry pie, but it was not very attractive, and 
 there being neither a single extra knife nor spoon of any kind, and no 
 extra plates whatever, from the first day to the last, the pie was, with 
 two exceptions, left untouched. The above is a fair sample of that dinner 
 and all the other meals were identical with that in every respect. Except 
 that fish or hard eggs on Friday, or chops alternate -* with the steak, and 
 that once, we had apples and raw tomatoes and corn three times and after 
 the first day the butter was good. The food itself was good, what there 
 was of it, except the butter and tea, but it was badly cooked and worse 
 served. The table at which all sat at meals was only about eight feet from 
 the door of the water closet, and as there was only one window in the 
 room, and the doors all locked and that for at least five days and nights 
 including the first night we were locked up, this room, only about twenty 
 feet square, had been occupied by twelve men and three watchmen, 
 eating in it, sleeping in it. (some of them) sitting and smoking in it, and 
 expectorating in it on the floor, ashes from pipes and cigars on the floor, 
 and a water-closet not eight feet from where you sat at the table ; all 
 this with the 
 
11 
 
 Thermometer Up In The 80'b 
 
 and I think you will aprof; that a mavi must have th(» Htomat^h of bii 
 ostrich to stand a four days sieg*^ of this kind. We made complaint to the 
 clerk of the court, and the room was swept out, and the next day it wa« 
 8<;rubhed out, and the tin apoons were replaced by something ])etter. 
 A' ther thing was that three small towels were expected to do duty for 
 ill ( nen for a whole day. At night each man had the ordinary camp 
 bed , \y.i with only one sheet and a horse blanket, the old grey style, for 
 a covor, the sheet not being wide enough to double, and had not been 
 changed sincie the previous jury used them, and with ourselves you 
 could not tell if it were the dame you slept on the pr M'ious night or not, 
 as they were all piled up toirotiier each morning, the corridors of the 
 Court House being used for the majority of the bods. The incredible 
 piece of yellow soap and a coml), minus several teeth, and no looking 
 glass at all the first day, were the only " implements of war" for the 
 morning ablutions of twelve weary men, tired from a sleepless night on 
 ill-provided couches, tired doubly so all day from the mental strain each 
 is called upon to perform towards his fellowmen, tired and sick fiom tne 
 anything but refreshing odors of his eating room, and in which from t 
 a. m., until 10 he is to be locked up, until called upon by the couri to 
 resume another day's mental strain, involving it may be the life or death 
 of a fellow maif, requiring on his part the clearest judgment of an un- 
 clouded brain. And yet the care of these twelve men is farmed out at 35c 
 per head per meal by the Sheriff', or whoever has this duty, to make all they 
 can out of it. Why, Sir, there are hundreds of places in the city where for 
 15c or 20c you can get a better meal and better served than we get there. By 
 what right does the Sheriff or any official of the Government assume 
 that, because a man is liable to be called as a juryman, that he may not 
 be, if not a gentleman, at least accustomed to ordinary comfort and 
 cleanliness in his daily life ? That the duties he ha? to perform are very 
 arduous no one will deny. Then it is the more contemptible on the part 
 I of the Government to expect men 
 
 To Do Their Duty 
 
 |and treat them as less than ordinary human beings. Surely the Govern- 
 lent could provide at least two rooms adjoining, one for eating and the 
 >ther for sleeping apartments, and properly arranged for comfort. The 
 J'ury is as much an important part of our legal system as the judge or 
 lawyers, and yet ample provision has been made for these, whereas the 
 
1*1 'III 
 
 
 12 
 
 jury — well, anything is too good for them, herd them up like sheep^ 
 put them in one room, throw the food before them, let them eat it or 
 leave it, and sleep as best they can, only they must be carefully watched. 
 1* 18 a wretched farce that in this nineteenth century such a state of things 
 eaa exist. Few men will believe it, but if I have not stated the facts without 
 exaggeration there are eleven other men to comfirmor deny ray state- 
 ments. I would suggest in future that the Grand Jury include the Petit 
 Jury and its apartments on its list for inspection. No one came to ask if 
 we had any complaints, when, in fact, every morning the jury after 
 haying been locked up should be asked if they had any complaints. This 
 to men wholly unaccustomed to such duties would be a safeguard. I 
 write these facts not that it is any satisfaction in so doing, but because 
 some one has blundered, some one is to blame and those who may be 
 subsequently unfortunate enough to have to go through ths same duty 
 may at least benefit by what I can say or do. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Juryman. 
 
 Montreal, fcSept. 30, 18ei5. 
 
 To THE Honorable 
 
 ARTHUR TURCUTTE, 
 
 Attornev-General, 
 
 Quebec. 
 Dear Sir. 
 
 The Honorable Prime Minister inform.* me that he has transmitted 
 to you my letter which I addressed to him on the 23rd. inst. relative to the 
 treatment of the Petit Jurors. I have the honor to enclose herein another 
 article of one of our newspapers on the same subject. 
 
 I have said enough in my letter to ray brother, that I believe it 
 useless to add any raore ; only that I remain convinced that my suggestion 
 can be realized and if you desire that I should occupy myself with the 
 matter I am certain that with your authorization I will be able to make 
 the role of Petit Jurors less disagreeable and more popular. 
 
 I have the honor to be. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 J. A. Mercieb 
 
13 
 
 (From thie " Montreal Daily Witness") 
 
 • 
 " The Deputy Sheriff of Montreal has been petitioned by the Petit 
 
 Jurors of the Court of Queen's Bench, to make certain changes in the 
 accommodation afforded to them and from the nature of this petition it is 
 not difficult to arrive at some of the reasons why the }ury system has not 
 produced satisfactory- results in this city of late. The jurors complain 
 that they are confined to one small room, which must serve the purp\)se 
 of a toilet, dining and smoking room for twelve men, sometimes for days 
 together, that their meals are served to them with an insufficient supply 
 of cutlery and crockery, and that they have to sleep upon cote in the 
 court room, which are not supplied with clean linen. The time was 
 when a juryman held a position in which he could face an earl or a thane 
 and it was in those days that the jury system was the great safeguard 
 of liberty. In some of the New England States the jurymen are still 
 elected at the same time as the selectmen or councillors, and the supreme 
 responsibility a deciding on matters involving character, personal 
 freedom, and life and death is there held in honor. Here we treat the 
 men to whom we commit interests that r -e not intrusted to the judges 
 on the bench with contempt. We carefully eliminate from the list of 
 petit jurymen by every convenient process all the more substantial, 
 cultured, and patriotic elements of the community, and those who can 
 claim no exemption are treated like the ignorant and uncultured beings 
 they too often are. It is not to be expected that the manner of men who 
 ought to fill a jury box will willingly submit to be herded into a small 
 room, fed like convicts, and given the sleeping accommodation furnished 
 to tramps ; so that every exemption that can possibly be claimed is sure 
 to be urged. If jurors were paid and treated as if they were not criminals 
 but the equals of th iudge. being the representatives of the people, as he 
 is the representative of the Crown, the evils of the jury system might be 
 reduced." 
 
 The non-payment of Jurors. 
 
 " La Paix " of Three-Rivers, bearing date December 10th. 1880, pub- 
 lishes the following article entitled " The Petit Jurors. " 
 
 The T'stit Jurors in the district of Three-Rivers receive no compen- 
 sation. Everywhere else they arc paid, and the Honorable Judge Larue 
 who is actually presiding over the criminal assizes at Three Rivers ex- 
 pressed his surprise, the other day, that the Jurors were not paid here. 
 Judge Larue had reason to be astonished. 
 
14 
 
 I 
 
 i'?' 
 
 I^i 
 
 m 
 
 Why V here are men who are summoned in the name of the Queen 
 to appear on such a day and at such an, hour without fail, under pain of 
 imprisonment and of a fine, to decide if an accused person is guilty or 
 not, ajid to those men who are taken away from their families, from their 
 business and their work ; to these men who are in a fashion constituted 
 prisoners ; on whom extraordinary duties and obligations are imposed ; 
 to theae men who are obliged to incur vexatious expenses ; to these men 
 Wiio are forcibly subjected to a mental strain, which for them, who are 
 not accustomed to it, is both a moral and physical suffering ; to these 
 men do we say no compensation whatever is given. This should not be. 
 
 But why are they not paid ? Why are the Petit Jurors of the district 
 of Three Rivers denied compensation ? Whose fault is it ? This is what 
 the Petit Jurors ask themselves in petto. When once liberated they return 
 to their homes and families complaining of and denouncing the injustice 
 done towards them. 
 
 The fault is not that of the Government as many of them seei 
 believe ; the fault on the contrary lies with the municipalities. 
 
 In fact the law is clear on this subject : " Each municipality in the 
 district shall be held to pay the annual sum of $13 to the building and 
 jury fund ; but this contribution shall not be exacted in a district, when 
 the other sources of revenue constituting the fund, will be sufficient, 
 without this contribution, to meet the charges imposed on the building 
 and jury fund of said district. 
 
 Nevertheless, in our district, the other sources of revenue have never 
 been sufficient ; since the petit jurors are not paid and all the govern- 
 ments which have succeeded one another, at Quebec, have each in their 
 turn demanded from the municipalities the payment of such contribution 
 but all in vain ; even i:*i face of threats of judicial proceedings against 
 them. 
 
 The last demand which was thus made upon the proper officials 
 by the revenue collector, was in the month of April 1888, on special 
 instructions issued from the department of the Honorable Joseph Shehyn ; 
 but that time again the municipalities were deaf and paid no attention 
 to the demand and it seems that it only remains for the government to 
 take severe action in the matter. 
 
 Let us hope however that it will not be necessary to employ such 
 rigourous means ; the Petit Jurors know now to whom should be attached 
 the blame of the unjust treatment to which they are subjected. It is for 
 ihem to see about it. " 
 
OHA-FTEK; II. 
 
 THE PETIT JURY. 
 
 Art. I. — Triat by Jury in the Province of Quebec. 
 
 In view of the foregoing complaints, officially made to the Government 
 
 I of the Province of Quebec, and popularly endorsed by the Public Press^ 
 
 and especially in view of flagrant miscarriages of Justice, resulting only 
 
 too frequently under our present jury system, it became a matter of 
 
 executive concern to investigate the cause of the evils, which, in this 
 
 Province, have long made trial by jury a subject of reproach from the 
 
 courts, of censure by the Press, and of derision among the people. Things 
 
 jhave come to such a pass that nothing but contempt for, and want of 
 
 [confidence in the jury system, is entertained by a vast number of our 
 
 Icitizens. 
 
 There is widespread conviction in the community, that trial by jury 
 is a failure, in fact that it is nothing better than a shield to protect the 
 jriminal from the avenging hand of justice. 
 
 To the question w^hich was put to numerous persons of all classes, of 
 , hat they thought of the jury system, came the almost invariable answer ; 
 [' If I were not guilty of the crime charged against me, I would w^ant to 
 )e tried by the Court, but if I were guilty then I would want to 
 )e tried by a jury. This answer is indicative of the little esteem and 
 jreat distrust that prevail in the public mind regarding this. method of 
 idministering iustice. That such is the state of public feeling is only too- 
 true. It finds forcible vent in the columns of the Press, which frequently, 
 In their criticism of the working and results of jury investigations and 
 jury trials, go to the extreme of suggesting and even urging the abolition 
 |f the system. 
 
 This is a condition of things to be lamented, but it is not one to be 
 [ured by being ignored. The jury system has played too important and 
 peful a role in human affairs to be either hastily disposed of, or care- 
 jsly left to decay. If the results obtained under it, have not always 
 
16 
 
 Kill 
 
 Imil 
 
 been satisfactory, such results are due not to the institution itself, but to 
 the laws under which it is made to Work. 
 
 And it is here that a grave mistake is made by attach ng the blame 
 and odium of the evils complained of to the jury system, when the laws 
 which direct and govern its operation are in themselves inadequate, 
 vicious and unsound, nnd consequently are largely if not solely creative 
 of the evil and injury done. 
 
 Art. II. — Qualifications of jurors. 
 
 Among the first requisites in a Petit Jury are intellig.'nce, education 
 and a high sense of citizen responsibility ; and strange to say there is a 
 law on the Statute Book of this Province, which actually eliminates the 
 vast bulk of the intelligence, education, responsibility, influence and 
 w^ealth of the community from the Jury box. Only persons of limited 
 means and opportunities can be called upon to give their services to the 
 Province in the administration of criminal justice, in its highest and 
 most responsible form. 
 
 The law which authorizes this invidious and absurd distinction, 
 looks innocent enough in type but in its application it produces harmful 
 effects. It reads as follows : 
 
 Persons qualified to be Petit Jurors. 
 
 " Subject to the exemption and disqualifications hereinafter pro- 
 vided for, the following persons are qualified to act, and, when duly 
 chosen and summoned, are bound to serve as petit jurors, namely : — 
 
 1. E^'ery male person, domiciled in a town or city, containing at 
 least twenty thousand inhabitants, or in the banlieu thereof, who is 
 entered upon the valuation roll as proprietor of immovable property of a 
 total value of a least twelve hundred dollars, but not more than three 
 thousand dollars ; or as occupant or tenant of immoveable property 
 of aii annual value of a least one hundred but not more than three 
 hundred dollars ; 
 
 2. Every male person, domiciled within the limits of any municipa- 
 lity in the counties of Graspe and Bonaventure, and entered on the valua- 1 
 tion roll as proprietor of a total value of at least four hundred dollars and 
 not more than one thousand dollars, or occupant or tenant for an annual 
 value of at least forty dollars and not more than one hundred dollars ; | 
 and 
 
It 
 
 3. In all other parts of the Province, every male person, domi- 
 <jiled within the limits of any municipality, whereof any part is situated 
 within thirty miles of the place of holding the court in the district in 
 which he resides, who is entered upon the valuation roll as proprietor 
 of immovable property of a total value of at least one thousand dollars, 
 but not more than two thousand dollars, or as occupant or tenant of 
 immovable property of an annual value of at least eighty dollars, but not 
 more than one hundred and fifty dollars." 46 V., c. 16, s. 2 
 
 So that all persons, who according to that section, pay or are sup- 
 posed to pay an annual rental of three hundred, one huuJ.red and fifty or 
 one hundred dollars or more, or who are proprietors of real estate of the 
 value of three thousand, two thousand, or one thousand dollars or more, 
 according to location in the Province, are distinctly disqualified from 
 serA^iug as i)etit jurors. 
 
 Although the possession of real estate or the occupancy of immovable 
 
 property of an annual value of one to three hundred dollars, is no special 
 
 indication or absolute guarantee of the intelligence and education, of the 
 
 i sound judgment and integrity of the citizen ; still it must be admitted 
 
 that the wholesale exclusion of citizens, who come under this provision of 
 
 [the law, from the jury box, is far from being calculated to add strength 
 
 land reliability to or create confidence in the jury system. 
 
 Whenever illogical or unjust verdicts are rendered in our courts, the 
 [voice of the community is raised at once in protest against " Trial by 
 [Jury." The imbecility and the perversity of the jurors are held up as 
 30gent reasons for the abolition of the whole institution. 
 
 Why ? the wonder is that justice is so well administrated as it is in 
 )ur criminal courts, considering the grievous restrictions, placed by law 
 ipon the choice of citizens to serve as Petit Jurors. 
 
 I am therefore of the opinion that the law establishing these restric- 
 |;ions should be repealed at the earliest opportunity. 
 
 There should be no difference in the qualifications of Grand and Petit 
 Furors. If any special qualifications were required, they should certainly 
 )e for the Petit and not the Grand Jurors. 
 
 The duties of the Petit Jury are immeasurably more serious and 
 
 [iflicult, and' their responsibility is far greater than those which devolve 
 
 Ipon the Grand Jury. The former are frequently called upon to decide 
 
 luestions which it is given to no other power or authority in the land 
 
 pronounce upon. And the law seeks to make the Grand Jury, with 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 W' 
 
 \m- 
 
 .11 r 
 
 its limited responsibility, absorb the most influential elements of the 
 community to the great detriment of the efficiency of the Petit Jury. 
 This, on the face of it, is illogical and unreasonable, and is opposed to an 
 intelligent and effective administration of justice. 
 
 The Statutes of the different States of the Union and of Ontario and 
 Manitoba expressly provide that, besides being qualified voters, jurors 
 shall be free from all legal exceptions, of fair character, of approved, 
 integrity, of sound judgment, well informed and the like, and neither 
 mentally nor bodily disabled. Many of the Statutes require a qualifica- 
 tion of freehold or hoasehold, and, in some cases, that the jurors shall be 
 assessed for propeity of a certain value. The Texas code provides as one 
 of the challenges for cause " that he (the juror) cannot read or write." 
 
 In this respect, our law could and should be made stricter. 
 
 I am consequently of the opinion that our standard of qualification 
 for jury service should be raised and clearly determined, and furthermore 
 that all difference in the qualifications of Grand and Petit Jurors, should 
 be abolished. 
 
 Art, III. — ExEiMPTioNs. 
 
 So as to widen the field, wherein to select eligible citizens as jurors, 
 the law, granting exemption from service on the jury, might be profitably 
 modified. 
 
 Of course it is not to be disputed that certain classes of citizens ought 
 to be exempt from jury service. Thus Executive Officers, members of 
 the judiciary, representatives in the Legislature and other public officials 
 ought to be excused from serving as jurors, upon the general principle, 
 that those who owe duties to the public cannot be expected to discharge 
 them faithfully and at the same time bear this additional burden. ' 
 
 But there are numerous classes of citizens who are granted exemption ^ 
 from jury duty, who ought to share the burden of the public adminis- 
 tration. 
 
 For example, there is no apparent reason why every official connected! 
 with or employed by incorporated Banks except the door-keeper andj 
 messenger thould be exempt. 
 
 If Bank officials can take lengthy holidays, which as a rvile they do,J 
 they surely can gire a few days service to the province when calledj 
 upon to act as jurors. Nor is there any reason why all municipal officersi 
 of the cities of Quebec and Montreal should be favored, as they are, withj 
 
19 
 
 exeraptiou : officers, non-commissioned officers and privates of the Militia 
 who are not on active service, should not employ the privilege of exemp- 
 tion as they do ; nor should all persons employed in the working of grist 
 mills or in the running of railway trains and, least of all, should the 
 members of the Council and of the Board of arbitration of the Montreal 
 Board of Trade be specially exempt, as it is men of their standing, 
 influence and capacity who are desirable aids to the Courts in administering 
 justice. 
 
 Art. IV. — The selection of Jurors. 
 
 It is not sufficient to simply declare what shall be the qualiilcationis 
 and exemptions of persons to serve as jurors, to secure an efficient jury 
 service. Something more is needed. The Statute should require that the 
 fitness of the person be judged and decided upon, by a proper tribunal, 
 before being called to fill the office of juror. 
 
 Under our present Statutes, there is absolutely no check upon the 
 summoning officer. They do not, in the slightest particular, provide for 
 any mode of selecting the jurors, except that the Sheriff is instructed not 
 to summon dead or absent persons. 
 
 The most unqualified elements of the community are as liable to be 
 summoned to serve on the jury, as persons who are really qualified. 
 
 In fact the Sheriff, who is the summoning officer, under our present 
 system, had no option in the matter. Section 2534 of the Revised Sta- 
 tutes distinctly says : 
 
 The G-rand and Petit jury lists are made by the Sheriff successively 
 inserting, in registers kept for that purpose, the name of the first person 
 in every extract (of the valuation roll) furnished to him, and afterwards 
 the name of the second person, and so on in rotation till the names of all 
 the persons appearing on such extracts are exhausted. 
 
 This is indeed a very impartial provision but it is far from being 
 [judicious. 
 
 What is the result of such a law ? 
 
 Why ? the Sheriff having no power and no means to enquire into 
 Ithe record, the character, the standing or the capacity of the persons, 
 [whom he is about to summon as jurors, calls them, as the law expressly 
 requires, a tour de role, totally irrespective of their physical, mental and 
 loral qualifications. So that " Mr Smith " who is a virtuous and intel- 
 ligent citizen, may be called to the jury box with " Mr Jones," who is 
 
20 
 
 
 - iH 
 
 Jil'itii 
 
 Ml.,!: ■! 
 
 * 
 
 ■{4 
 
 a man of acknowledged depravity or ignorance or of both, to determine 
 questions of the utmost moment to the State and to the individual. 
 
 I have found that, under the present system of selection, men have 
 been suminoned and have appeared in the Court of Queen's Bench at 
 Montreal, to serve as jurors, who were convicted felons. And it has 
 even happened that men, against whom bills of indictment were presented 
 to the Grand Jury were actually members serving on the snme O-rand 
 Jury. 
 
 This is an astounding condition of things ; but th'^re is nn help for 
 it because the law makes no provision, as is uuiverxnlly done in other 
 I'rovinccs of the Dominion and the States o!' the Union, for the selection 
 of persons who, to use the terms of the Statutes of Mauitobi, " from the 
 integrity of tht^ir character, soundness of thiur judgm'Mit and the extent 
 of their information, are the most discreet and compj^eut for the perfor- 
 mance of the duties of jurors." 
 
 Jurors in the Province of Quebec are not required by law to possess 
 an V of these attributes ; all that is exacted is that they occupy or own 
 real estate of certain limited value. 
 
 Clearly there is room for reform here. The Province is sorely in need 
 o .' a system for the selection of its jurors. Elsewhere the greatest care 
 nnd supervision are given to the mode of selecting fit and proper mater- 
 ial for the .jury service. Elaborate systems are proA'ided by the Provin- 
 cial and America a Statutes for the selection of jurors, which is jealously 
 guarded and v holly removed from the control of the summoning officer. 
 
 In the Province of Quebec the officer selects the jurors at the same 
 time he summons them. This is a pernicious and dangerous feature of j 
 our jury system, and should not to bo tolerated any longer. It is carefully j 
 excluded from all the other jury organizations that I have enquired into. 
 Such unbridled discretion, vested in any one officer, is liable to result in | 
 many abuses. 
 
 The officer who summons should not be the officer who selects. 
 
 A substantial uniformity in the method of selecting is apparent iul 
 the Statutes of the several Provinces and States. As a general rule thej 
 Sheriff is hot permitted to have any hand in the selection. 
 
 The Statutes specify the number of jurors to be annually selected inj 
 each county, which selection is made by county courts, county commis-i 
 sioners, town authorities or by other officers specially designated and! 
 
21 
 
 appointed for the purpose, and the liat so prepared, is transmitted to the 
 Clerk of the Coimty or Circuit Courts, \, here it is filed, sind the names 
 copied upon slips of paper which are placed in the jury ready for the 
 drawing. The systems of the different Provinces and States vary ; 
 
 By special boards. 
 
 In Manitoba the selection of jurors is confided to two sets of officers 
 who are termed " Selectors " and who form a first and a final board of 
 selector • The Mayor, the city, town or municipal clerk and tlie stssessors 
 are, ex-nJfi,no, the first board of selectors of jurors for every such city, town 
 or local municipality. The judge of the County Court, the Sheriff and the 
 Secretary-Treasurer of the judicial district board constitute the final 
 boaid of sylectors. 
 
 - In Ontario the Senior Judge of the County Court, the Junior Judge 
 theroof, the Mayor of any city in the county, the Warden, the Treasurer 
 and the Sheriff are ex-ojficio selectors of jurors and are known as " County 
 Selectors ". There are also " the first selectors ol jurors " for every town- 
 ship and village and for each ward of every city and town ; this board 
 is made up by the Mayor or Ileeve, the city and municipal clerks and 
 the assessors. 
 
 In several States this selection is entrusted to standing boards of 
 county officers such as the supervisors or commissioners. In others, the 
 duty is performed by special boards, composed of the Judges of the 
 probate and district courts, together with two or three commissioners 
 appointed by the latter, etc. ; 
 
 By Town Officers. 
 
 In the New England St;^tes the system of selection differs in one 
 respect from that which generally prevails ; the selection being made by 
 Ithe town authorities. In Massachusetts the selection is annually made 
 I by two selectmen of each town who post up the list ten days before each 
 town meeting to which it is submitted for approval. The latter body is 
 I authorized by vote to strike out objectional names and insert others in 
 I their stead. In cities the list is prepared by the Mayor and Alderman, 
 lit is likewise published for ten days, and is then submitted to the 
 iCon^mon Council for their revision. 
 
 Itt New York the selection is made by the supervisor, town clerk 
 land assessors of each towu, duplicate lists being filed with the town and 
 [county clerks. 
 

 3 ' 
 
 »i 
 
 ll 
 
 In Wisconsin the supervisors of towns, trustees of villages and the 
 aldermen of cities perform this duty, certifying the result to the county 
 clerk, who lays the lists before the county board to aid them in their 
 selection. 
 
 By Courts and Commissioneus. 
 
 In Kentucky the law provides for a regular Board of Jury Commis- 
 sioners to make the selection of jurors. In Virginia the judge of the 
 county or corporation court makes the selection. 
 
 In Maryland, the clerk of the County Commissioners, after each gene- 
 ral election, returns to the clerk of the Circuit Court a list of the tax- 
 payers over twenty five years of age. From this list and from the poll- 
 books of the last general election, the selection is made by the judge of 
 the Circuit Court. 
 
 In Ohio the selection is also made on the occasion of the general 
 election, by the trustees of each township and the council men of each 
 ward, who deliver their list to the judge of the election, who returns his 
 select list to the clerk of the court. 
 
 This duty of selection, thus entrusted to specially designated offi- 
 cers, is regarded as so imperative and important that heavy penalties are 
 visited upon those who neglect to carry out the requirements of the law. 
 For instance, the Statutes of Maryland provides that " for failure to per- 
 form the duty hereby imposed, the said clerk to commissioners shall 
 forfeit and pay a fine to the State, of not less than five hundred dollars, 
 nor more than one thousand dollars, in the discretion of the court, to be 
 recovered by indictment as for a misdemeanor and he shall be thence- 
 forth wholly incapable of holding or exercising the duties of the said 
 clerk to the county commissioners. 
 
 I shall conclude my remarks on this head by strongly urging the 
 necessity of adopting one of the foregoing methods of selecting jurors. 
 To sximmon all classes of persons indiscriminately cannot but lead to 
 the introduction of unworthiness and unfitness into the jury. No one 
 should be called upon to participate in the administration of justice, 
 without at first having his fitness put to the test ; and the only practi- 
 t;al way to accomplish that end is to establish a properly and wisely 
 constituted tribunal whose duty it will be to pronounce upon the wor- 
 thiness and fitness oi persons to serve as jurors. 
 
23 
 
 Art V. — Drawing of the panel. 
 
 Another importaut step in the organization of a jury is the drawing 
 of the Panel. This is practically unknown to our Statute. Jurors in this 
 Province are supposed to be taken straight from the various municipal 
 assessment rolls by the SheriiT, each in their turn as their names appear 
 thereon. 
 
 Elsewhere jurors are chosen by lot, from the list of persons officially 
 selected for jury service. There is a marked uniformity in the method ol 
 drawing jurors as practised in the several Provinces and States. The 
 County Clerk or other officer, to whom the list of selected jurors, as pre- 
 viously described, has been forwarded, files the same in his office and 
 writes down the names contained in such lists on separate pieces of 
 paper, of similar shape and appearance. He them folds up each piece 
 of paper so as to conceal the name written thereon and deposits them 
 in an urn or box. Or as is done in Ontario, instead of placing the names 
 on the ballots, the names on the selected list are numbered, and ballots 
 numbered and equal to the total of the names on the list are placed in 
 the urn. "When the ballot is drawn +he name, to which is appended the 
 number corresponding to the number on the ballot, is inserted on the 
 panel. 
 
 In Pennsylvania a wheel is used instead of a box. This wheel is care- 
 fully locked and sealed with the individual seals of the jury commissioners 
 and the key is placed in the custody of the Sheriif. 
 
 The time for drawing the panel is either prescribed by Statute or it 
 is fixed by an order of the judge of the court for which the jurors are 
 drawn. The drawing is usually conducted by a county officer, the clerk 
 of the court or Sheriff", with the assistance of certain officers as prescribed 
 by law. The numbers of jurors to be drawn is limited by Statute or 
 determined by an order of the court. 
 
 Public notice of the drawing must be given beforehand by the proper 
 officer in the newspaper of the county or if there is none, he must affix 
 a notice thereof on the outer door of the Building where the term, for 
 which the jurors are to be drawn, is to be held. 
 
 The system of drawing in the New England States is somewhat 
 different from the one that obtains elsewhere. 
 
 As the list of jurors selected is retained by the town authorities, 
 instead of being certified to by the county clerk, the drawing is necess- 
 arily conducted by the former. 
 
24 
 
 f'!\i^^ 
 
 III 
 
 m^ 
 
 f! i' 
 
 ? I! 
 
 V 
 
 
 m 
 
 In MasHarhusettB the dorks of the Supnune mid Superior Courts iii 
 due seaHoii before each term, issue writs v>)! venirn fminn requiring from 
 each town and city a number of Jurors, as la-arly as may be, in proportion 
 to their respective number of inhabitants. Those writs are, without delay, 
 served regularly on the selectmen and town clerk, who at the appointed 
 time and place proceed to draw the jurors in substantially the same way 
 as elsewhere. 
 
 Any town may at a legal meeting order that all drafts for jurors 
 therein shall be made in open town meetings ; in which case, wlien a 
 venire is served upon the selectmen, it is their duty to <-au3e a town meet- 
 ing to be notified for that purpose, in the manner ordered by the town 
 or otherwise presented by law. 
 
 In cities the Mayor and Aldermen and the Clerk severally exercise 
 all the aforesaid powers and duties with regard to drawing and all other 
 matters relating to the drawing of jurorw. In such case the Mayor and 
 Aldermen must be served with all vcnirm for jurors, required to be 
 returned from a city. 
 
 New Jersey possesses a system of prociring jurors which is markedly 
 different from that adopted in any other vState, and it is the only one that 
 slightly resembles our method, inasmuch as it places the power of draw- 
 ing largely in the hands of the Sheriff, 
 
 In that State the names are not drawn out of a box containing the 
 names of all the selected jurors. When a term is to bo held, a special 
 nession of the court is held at which the Sheriff and the County Clerk 
 appenr. The Court directs the number of jurors to be drawn. The She- 
 riff thereupon takes the list of selected jurors and after consulting it, he 
 at his pleasure selects double the number of jurors called for by the court ; 
 he copies the names upon separate pieces of paper, folds and places them 
 in a box containing no other ballots. From this limited number of names 
 selected by the Sheriff the required number of jurors are drawn in open 
 court. 
 
 The following is a brief summary of how the drawing is generally 
 conducted : 
 
 1. The clerk must mix the ballots thoroughly by shaking the box 
 well. 
 
 2. One ballpt at a time must then be publicly drawn out, until the 
 requisite number has been drawn. Precaution must be taken that he 
 ■who draws the ballot shall not see the name or number thereon. 
 
 -a^ i iii.t.immk..i. i . f \ '*\t mm 
 
«fi 
 
 3. A minute of the (Irawing must bo kept by one of tho atteudiug 
 officers ill which must bo outerod tho name written on each ballot drawn, 
 before anothei can be drawn. 
 
 4. When the name of a person has been drawn who is dead, insane 
 or reraove'l permanently from the county to the knowledj^fo of an attend- 
 infc officer, or who for any legal reason need not or ought not serve ou 
 the panel, an entry of that fact must be made in the minute of the 
 drawing, and the ballot containing that person's name must be destroyed- 
 I Whereupon another ballot must be drawn in its place and the name 
 
 contained therein must be entered in like manner in the minute of the 
 [drawing. 
 
 5. When the requisite number of jurors have been obtained, the 
 minute of the drawing must then be signed by the clerk and the other 
 attending officers, and filed in the clerk's office. 
 
 6. A list of the names of the persons so drawn, showing the place of 
 residence, and other proper addition of each of them, and specifying for 
 what court and term they were drawn, must be made and i-ertified by 
 the clerk and the other attending officers, and delivered to the Sheriff of 
 the County. 
 
 Any neglect on the part of the officers charged with the duty of 
 making the drawing is generally punished by a fine, varying in amonut 
 from twenty dollars to five hundred dollars. 
 
 Art. VI — Publicity of the panel. 
 
 The several Statutes are not agreed upon the question of publicity 
 to be given to the result of the drawing of the panel. For iiistance the 
 Statutes of Ontavjo enact that copies of the panel, containing the names 
 and place? of residence of the jurors, shall at all reasonable times be 
 open to public inspection without fee or reward. In Manitoba, on the 
 other hand, we find an enactment that neither the Grand Jury panel nor 
 the Petit Jury panel nor any name thereon shall be communicated verbally 
 or otherwise to any person until after such panel is returned into court 
 by the Sheriff. In the States generally, the Statutes provide for making 
 public the result of the drawing of the panel of jurors. 
 
 In New York, for example, it is made the duty of the county clerk 
 [or Sheriff to furnish a copy of the list of trial jurors, drawn to attend a 
 I term, to any person applying therefor and paying the fees allowed 
 ! by law. 
 

 
 26 
 
 te^: 
 
 11 
 
 M 
 
 Wl 
 
 
 ¥:.M 
 
 I 
 
 The law of Quebec, like that of Manitoba, strictly prohibits all persons 
 except the Sheriff and his employees, from taking communication of the 
 Grand and Petit Jury Panels, until after such panels are returned into 
 court. 
 
 The object of this enactment is, I suppose, to prevent accused 
 persons who are to come up for trial from knowing who are to serve 
 as jurors and from approaching or using any undae influence with the 
 jurors summoned to try their cases. 
 
 This provision is practically of no efl'ect, and almost wholly fails to 
 aoco.jplish the end the Legislature must have had in view, in adopting 
 it. The names of the jurors must be divulged, when the panel is returned 
 into Court ; so that all accused persons, who are up for trial, have 
 eventually, except the first few unfortunates whose trials come off at the 
 beginning at the term, ample time and opportunity during the term of 
 the panel's service to make the acquaintance of the jurors. 
 
 This enactment is, consequently, not only ineffective in its results 
 but it is unfair in its application, as it only tells against the persons who 
 are put on their trial during the first days of the term of the Court. 
 
 Art. VII. — Summoning of Jurors and Talesmen. 
 
 The provisions of the Quebec Statute relating to the summoning of | 
 jurors are ample and effective enough, so far as the regular i>anels are 
 concerned ; but, where the Statute is found wanting i? in its failure to 
 provide for deficiencies that may occur in the regular panels by non 
 attendance of jurors or by challenges on the part of the prosecutor and 
 of the accused. 
 
 If in the organization of the jury, great care and attention are to be| 
 given to the selection of jurors and to the drawing of the original panels, 
 it follows that, in summoning additional jurors, or talesmen, to supply a I 
 deficiency in the panel through any cause whatever, all discrimination 
 should not be cast aside. The Statute, consequently, should provide as | 
 carefully for such emergencies as for the regular course of the adminis- 
 tration of justice. 
 
 True the Federal Statute steps i-^ and enacts what should be done] 
 under such circumstances. 
 
 Section 168, ch. It4, 49 Victoria, says : 
 Whenever, in any criminal case, the panel has been exhausted by I 
 challenge, or by default of jurors by non-attendance or not answering 
 
27 
 
 when called, or from any other cause, and a complete jury for the trial of 
 , such case cannot be had for reason thereof, then, upon request made on 
 jbahalf of the Crown, the court may, in its discretion, order the Sheriff or 
 
 other proper officer forthwith to summon such number of good men of 
 t the district, county, or place, whether on the roll of jurors or otherwise 
 
 qualified asjnrorsor not, as the court deems necessary and directs, in 
 [order to make up a full jury ; 
 
 Such Sheriff or officer shall forthwith summon by word of mouth or 
 lin writing, the number of persons he is so required to summon and add 
 Itheir names to the general panel of Jurors returned to serve at that court 
 [and, subject to the right of the Crown and of the accused respectively, as 
 jto challenge or direction to stand aside the person whose names are so 
 [added to the panel shall, whether otherwise qualified or not, be deemed 
 duly qualified as jurors in the case, and so until a complete jury is ob- 
 jtaiued, and the trial shall then proceed as if such jurors were originally 
 [returned duly and regularly on the panel ; and, if before such order, one or 
 jmore persons have been sworn ov admitted unchallenged on the Jury, he 
 lor they n^ay be retained on the Jury, or the jury may bi discharged, as 
 |the court directs : 
 
 Every person so summoned as a Juror shall forthwith attend an i act 
 
 |iu obedience to the summons, and if he makes default shall ba punishable 
 
 in like manner as a juror summoned in the usiial way ; and such Jurors 
 
 Iso newly summoned shall be added to the panel for such case only." 
 
 132-33 v., c 28, s. 41. 
 
 This exactment is out of place in the Statute Books of the Dominion 
 
 »f Canada. It is a clear Usurpation of the legislative powers of the 
 
 Provinces, and is a violation of the British North America Act which 
 
 jexpressly sett^ forth "that in each province the Legislature may exclusively 
 
 [make laws in relation to the constitution, maintenance and organization 
 
 )fFrovineial Courts of criminal Jurisdiction." 
 
 It is beyond the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to say what 
 
 )ersons shall or shall not enter into the composition of a jury, and much 
 
 [ess, should it assume, even if it had the right, to enact that men " whether 
 
 )n the roll of jurors or othenvise qualified as Jurors ornof," should be summoned 
 
 [0 act as jurors. 
 
 The idea of summoning jurors, " whether qualified or not,'' is not very 
 kmarkable for brightness or wisdom : it is certainly not an adornment to 
 Statute Book and the sooner it is wiped out the better. Under no 
 

 2a 
 
 K'H : 
 
 m 
 
 M 
 
 mai 
 
 k 
 
 mm 
 
 'Mm 
 
 P 
 
 
 circumstance nhould juslice be administered by jurors who are n,ot 
 qualified. 
 
 Both the Province of Ontario and of Manitoba have ig^uored this 
 B^cd^ral provision regarding the summons of talesmen, and regulate the 
 matter according to their own views and convenience. 
 
 The Ontario Statute, after providing for the return of additional 
 Grand Jurors, when a sufficient number of the regular panel do not 
 appear, enacts that " where a full jury does not appear at a sitting of the 
 £Digh Court or at a sitting of a County Court, or where after the appear- 
 ance a full jury, by challenge of any of the parties, the jury is likely to '^ 
 remain untaken for default of jurors, every such court, upon requeue 
 made for the Queen by any one thereto authorized or assigned by th« I 
 Courts, shall command the Sheriff or other officer to whom the making of | 
 the return belongs, to name and appoint, as often as needs requires, so 
 many of such other able men of the County, as the case may be, 
 then presen t, as will make up a full jury, and the Sheriff or other officer I 
 aforesaid bhall, at such command of the Court, return such duly qualified 
 men as be present, or can be found, to serve on the jury, and shall add 
 and annex their names to any panel that has been returned upon ai^y| 
 preceptor venire facias in such cause. " (ch. 52, sec. 101) 
 
 In the Manitoba Statutes there are several sections which deal withj 
 this question of deficiency in the jury and of summoning a sufficient num- 
 ber to supply it. Section 195, ch 17, says : 
 
 " Whenever, from the number of the challcngt^s or any other cause, | 
 there is in any such case a deficiency of persons skilled in the language 
 of the dt* fence the Court shall fix another diy for the trial for such case ; 
 and the Sheriff shall supply the deficiency by summoning for the day sol 
 fixed such additional number of jurors skilled in the language of thej 
 defence as the Judge may order, and as are found inscrib^^d next in succes- 
 sion on the roll of Petit Jurori!!." 
 
 In the States, the selection oftalesmen is generally governed by thii| 
 Statutes which have taken from the summoning officer the power of selec- 
 tion. The flagrant abuses arising from the summoning of bystanders,! 
 coupled with the dangerous power of the Sheriff in making the selection! 
 have given rise to legislation in many of the States designed to checkj 
 both evils. 
 
 Some of the American Statutes expressly provide that, in no ca^e, 
 Bh»\\ talesman be taken from the bystanders. T^is p^ vision is adopt<?4J 
 
^^ 
 
 to exclude disreputable persons who loiter around court rooms having no 
 other purpose than to be selected lor jury service. 
 
 Talesmen should possess the statutory qualifications of regular jurors 
 iaud the number of persons to be summoned as such, if not specified by 
 Statute, rests in the discretion of the trial court. They should sit only in 
 the particular case in which they are summoned. 
 
 Art. VIII. — Trkatment and remuneration of jurors. 
 
 'I he treatment which should be accorded to jurors is a subject which 
 deserves spe nal attention at the hands of the Legislature of this Province. 
 It is no exaggeration to say that jurors are treated more like degraded 
 creatures, who would be unworthy of any attention, than men, who are 
 called upon to assume grave responsibilities and perform the highe.st 
 functions. 
 
 A perusal of the petition, the coirespondence and newspaper articles 
 which are to be found at the beginning of this report, will sufficiently 
 convince any one of the serious grievances which jurors are made to 
 suffer. Their condition is simply insufferable, and is well calculated to 
 [ompel men who have any self-respect or regard for decency, to shirk 
 service o « cur juries. 
 
 Add to this, as the Toronto Globe truly remarks, " that all the court 
 I officials, from the Judge down to the bailiff, appear to regard themselves 
 as the superiors of the jurymen, and it is sometimes difficult to find any 
 difference between their mode of addressing a juryman and their mode 
 [of addressing a prisoner. This of course is quite wrong. The law gives 
 [the jury a place of at least equal importance with the Judge. It should 
 jcither be accorded that position or abolished altogether. ," 
 
 It is time that the position of jurors be made respectable and honor- 
 lable in the eyes of all. Wherever improper treatment has been meted out 
 to jurors, there has the jury service been impaired. If any community 
 would have high minded and honorable jurors it must treat them in a 
 high minded and honorable way ; for, as Governor Ilovey of Indiana 
 says : " the service and important duties they are called upon to per- 
 jform, entitle them to all due consideration on the pirt of the State." 
 
 In the .State of Illinois, ac ording to Judg.^ Grrimell, life is made as 
 Icomfortable and agreeable as possible for the jurors ; they are refused no 
 Icomfort and are given medical attendance. They are supplied with read- 
 ling matter, magarjnes and all literature they may ask for, except any- 
 
80 
 
 W&' 
 
 1$^ 
 
 If:'. ■■ 
 
 m 
 
 i' 
 
 V 
 
 m 
 
 m ■ 
 
 thing bearing on the trial. They may take their meals at the hotels and 
 sleep there and the State pays the bills. 
 
 Judge Learned of the Supreme Court of New York, urges that it ig 
 wrong to oix^asion men, who are required to perform this irksome duty, 
 any more discomfort than is inseparable from their position. 
 
 In Manitoba they make it a point to treat the jurors with all possible 
 consideration. " The jurors," says Mr. Fisher, M. P. P. of Winnipeg. 
 " should have the best of everything that is going." If you want to get a 
 clear headed decision from the jury, it does not assist to that end by sub- 
 jecting the jurors to discomfort, inconveniences and annoyance. How are 
 men to listen attentively to evidence and arguments if they are deprived 
 of bodily comforts and mental recreation. 
 
 Hon. 0. Mowat, Prime Minister of Ontario, says that everything prac- 
 ticable in the way of accommodation should be done to make jurors rea- 
 sonably comfortable. 
 
 Mr. Lount, Q. C. of Toronto, says he cannot understand why jurors 
 should not be treated and remunerated as men ought to be, who render 
 valuable service to the Province. To act otherwise, would not only be | 
 unfair to the jurors but it would not serve the ends of justice. This sys- 1 
 tem of harsh treatment might have suited the feudal ages, but is certainly 
 not acceptable in these modern times. Jurors should get every accom- 
 modation that they get at home. 
 
 I would, therefore, respectfully urge upon the Government the imme-j 
 diate necessity of ameliorating the condition of our jurors, and of carrying 
 out the reforms as indicated in the views of the foregoing authorities and| 
 in the practice of other communities. 
 
 Wk 
 
 m 
 
 ])» 
 
 
 KEMUNERATION OF JUUORS. 
 
 If jurors are to be well cared for and treated with all due respect, 
 they should also receive fair remuneration for the time and services they 
 give to the Province in the administration of justice. I am of the opinionj 
 that it is an abuse of power, on the part of the State, to compel a citizen! 
 to serve it in any capacity at the sacrifice of his personal interests audi 
 those of his family. And yet, men in this Provice, are forced in the namel 
 of the Queen and under heavy penalties to give two or more weeks ofj 
 their time and labor to the State, without any compensation whatever 
 
 111. 4 : 
 
SI 
 
 The families of these men might be in distress and Avant, for all that the 
 State cared. 
 
 This condition of things is found to exist in the populous district of 
 Three Rivers where the jurors are denied remuneration of any kind. The 
 article which I quote from La Paix of Three Rivers sets forth the facts 
 regarding this injustice towards poor and struggling people who are 
 forced to do jury service gratis, while the need of a loaf of bread may be 
 i felt in their absent homes. 
 
 This violation of the Statute, which provided that petit jurors shall 
 
 [receive an allowance of fifty cents or one dollar per day according as 
 
 I they live within or outside the limits of the municipality where the 
 
 court is held, ought not to be tolerated. The allowance is surely paltry 
 
 [enough without bringing it down to nothing. 
 
 The words of Chs C. Bonney, ex-President of the Bar A.8sociation of 
 [Illinois, may be well cited at this juncture : " The compensation of jurors 
 has too often been scandalously small. It should be made such that a 
 respectable member of the community w^ould not feel degraded in 
 receiving it." If Mr Bonney had practical experience of how w^e pay our 
 jurors he could not have depicted the situation in more truthful and 
 forcible terms, for in truth, the remuneration which our jurors receive 
 is scandalously small and is such that a respectable member of the com- 
 [munity feels degraded in receiving it. 
 
 If the Province wants qualified persons, that is intelligent and 
 [respectable men, to give their services as jurors, the Province must 
 [offer fair remuneration to the jurors both Grrand and Petit. 
 
 In Manitoba jurors receive two dollars a day w^hen they are selected 
 jfrom the rural districts and besides are allowed their travelling expenses. 
 jThose from the city or place where the court is held are paid one dollar 
 laud fifty cents. Those who cannot go home get paid for any holiday 
 loccuring during their time of service. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, Q. C, M. P. P. of Winnipeg, is of the opinion that 
 I jurors should get at least two dollars a day with an allowance for tra- 
 [veiling expenses, so that mechanics, tradesmen, and laborers may not 
 jsuffer want, and that their families may be provided for, during their 
 lenforced absence from home to assist the State in the administration of 
 [justice. As for merchants and other well-to-do people, he added, that 
 jalthough the sum of two dollars would not pay them for their loss of 
 time, they, in the end, profit by having a more efiicient administration 
 
'l'&. 
 
 •:&:- 
 
 tt 
 
 11- 
 
 I: !•.'■' 
 
 I'm 
 
 ^;i' 
 
 •I 
 W 
 hi 
 
 1*, 
 
 m' 
 
 sit 
 
 i'i 
 
 
 »■ 
 
 ',»/ 
 
 <jf justice, and thereby secnriug for their persons, rights and property 
 better protorction. 
 
 The province of Ontario pays its jurors one dollar and fifty cents a 
 day and ten cents mileage, and when the isourt lasts over one or more 
 Sundays, mileage is again allowed, so that the jurors may spend that 
 day at home. 
 
 In the State of Massachusetts the sura of three dollars a day is paid 
 to jurors. This allowance, says 0. A. Galvin, United States Attorney for 
 the district of Massachusetts, is just above the average per diem wages 
 of the skilled mechanic and is a fair compensation. 
 
 Judge Magruder of the Supreme Court of Illinois would he in favor 
 of paying jurors at least five dollars a day. 
 
 The State of Connecticut pays two dollars and fifty cents a day to 
 Grand and Petit Jurors and six cents for each mile of travel, from their 
 place of residence to the place of holding the court and back, for each 
 week of their attendance 
 
 The Statute of Rhode Island provides that all Grand and Petit Jurors 
 shall be paid two dollars for each day's attendance, and they shall fur- 
 ther be entitled to ten cents for each mile of travel to and from court. 
 
 In New-Jersey the jurors receive an allowance of two dollars per] 
 diem. Indiana allows a fee of two dollars per day to Grand and Petit 
 Jurors while in actual attendance and five cents for each mile necessarily 
 travelled. The Statute of Illinois enacts that there shall be allowed and 
 paid to Grand and Petit Jurors, for their services each the sum of two 
 dollars per day and also five cents a mile each way for necessary travel.] 
 
 The State of Kentucky pays its Petit Jurors two dollars a day and its 
 Grand Jurors one dollar and fifty cents. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the average remuneration given to jurors 
 both Grand and Petit in the several States and Provinces, is two dollars 
 for each day's attendance, with an extra allowance of five to ten cents for] 
 mileage. 
 
 In the Province of Quebec the Grand Jurors are paid nothing for 
 either their services or their travelling expenses. 
 
 It ought not to be necessary to insist that the Legislature should take I 
 steps to change a condition of things which is far trom being creditable 
 to the ProA'ince, or fair to the citizens, who are called to devote their | 
 time to the public administration of justice. There should be no hesita- 
 tion on increasing the fee to two dollars for each day's attendance at court I 
 
 4 
 
BWiAl 
 
 W 
 t^C 
 
 33 
 
 with an allowance for travelling expenses, payable to both Grand and 
 Petit Jurors. 
 
 Art. IX.— The Freedom of the Jury. 
 
 Should the ancient practice of keeping tl^e jurors under lock and 
 key, as prisoners of the court, be continued in this Province ? This is a 
 question which is agitating the public mind. I have endeavored to find 
 a sc ation for it, by ascertaining the views of competent authorities of 
 the highest standard, by studying the different customs and gathering 
 , the varied experiences of other countries. 
 
 There was a time when jurors were denied all opportunity for rest 
 jand refreshment during the progress of trials. They were not only 
 locked up as prisoners and securely isolated from the rest of the world, 
 I but they were treated as " unruly " prisoners. 
 
 In later times, however, this severity, not to say brutality of treat- 
 I ment accorded to jurors was frowned upon, and was considerably abated. 
 The physical comfort and requirements of the juror, while locked up, 
 jwere taken into consideration. 
 
 If it thus became necessary to relax the old rule and pay more respect 
 land give bettertreatmeutto jurors in their enforced isolation, the question 
 jean now be put : has the time arrived to take another step in advance 
 jand give the juror a greater measure of freedom than he now enjoys ? 
 
 That step has been taken elsewhere, and it does not seem to have 
 led to results in any way detrimental to the proper and effective 
 |administration of justice. 
 
 Neither the State, nor persons charged with offences against the 
 [aw, have had occasion to complain of, or suffer any injury from the fact 
 that jurors were allowed to separate, wherever that liberty is provided 
 |jor by statute, or granted by the court in its discretion. 
 
 Of course it is not my intention to suggest or urge that in all cases 
 md under all circumstances, unlimited freedom should be given to the 
 lurors ; but I am certainly of opinion that there are numerous cases, 
 pried before our criminal courts, in which it is real hardship and an 
 mnecessary safeguard to keep the jurors locked up for days at a time, 
 )reventing them from attending to their family and business affairs. 
 
 The mere fact of calling certain crimes, " misdemeanors " (many of 
 |hem grievous and certain other crimes " felonies ", many of them 
 )mparatively venial) can not, to the average reflective mind, offer 
 3 
 
''■V '' 
 
 m^: 
 
 If ■ 
 
 |m::. 
 
 i 
 
 
 S4 
 
 any reason or justification for the practice which Compels the captivity 
 of jurors in a trial for felony and allows them their freedom in a trial fori 
 misdemeanor. 
 
 A more intelligent rule or law is required to govern and direct thiil 
 feature of the jury system. If jurors, while trying a tase oi' misdemeanorl 
 are entitled to their liberty in the discretion of the court, I do not seel 
 why the same jurors are to be locked up because they happen to try al 
 petty case which the law is pleased to term a " felony." 
 
 The Provincial Statutes contain no enactments on this subject. Thel 
 Federal Statutes, however, undertake to direct what shall be done wittl 
 the jury. Sec. 169 ch. IH says : — 
 
 " In all criminal cases, less than felony the jury may, in the discrej 
 tion of the court and under its direction as to the conditions, mode, wi 
 time, be allowed to separate during the progress of the trial." 
 
 ir the Dominion Parliament has the right to legislate on this subject] 
 it ought to amend the law in the sense as indicated above. 
 
 But, it seems, to me, that a stretch of the imagination is required tJ 
 make out that the question of the freedom of the jury is one of prooej 
 dure, and thereby removed from the jurisdiction of the Provincial LegisJ 
 lature. 
 
 I incline to the opinion, that the question of the freedom of the juH 
 properly belongs to the Legislature of the Province to deal with, on thj 
 ground that it is one which affects the organization, maintenance anij 
 constitution of the courts, and consequently one of the subjects, enum^ 
 rated in article 92 of the " British North America Act " in relation 
 which the Province may exclusive/// make laws. 
 
 By constitutional right, the Piovinces prescribe how, when, aoj 
 where judgas shall sit and hear cases. But the functions performed bj 
 jurors, are jjurely judicial ; therefore the Provincial Legislatures have tli 
 constitutional right to prescribe how, when, and where jurors are to trj 
 cases. 
 
 There is no need to develop this argiiment ; its syllogistic plainne| 
 cannot detract from its force or truth. 
 
 I might observe however, that if it were decided not to raise 
 present standard of qualifications for our jurors, and to leave ihi 
 .selection to the summoning officer. I would not feel justified, to the sani 
 j^ztent, in Tecommendiug any extension of freedom to the Petit Jutoij 
 But, on the other hand, if the Legislature sees fit to enact that none1)j 
 
85 
 
 men of (character, intelligence and of approved integrity, shall be called 
 upon to do (jury servioe, then I can see no great impropriety ordrnmediate 
 danger in following the example of other communities, where the jurors 
 are trusted by the court, the accused and the public. 
 
 Another fact, to which I may be allowed to draw the aittettti<m ipf 
 all those concerned, is that the Grand Juries enjoy perfect liberty in all 
 cases, during their investigations ; and no one, that I am aware of, ever 
 dfeams of suggesting that they should be locked up, "while they arc 
 determining whether an accused person is «o^ guiHi/ or is ,possibfy .guiltj 
 of -the charge brought against him. 
 
 And still, if safeguards are required to prevent improper approaches 
 from being made to jurors by interested persons, these safeguards should 
 be thrown around ihe G-raud Jurors in preference to the Petit Jurots. 
 This is my roasou for that conclusion. G-rand Jurors only hear one side 
 of the case, tha' of the prosecution against the accused. They are conse- 
 quently more inclined and more liable than the Petit Jurors to listen lo 
 and be influenced by talcs told, and assurances given them outside the 
 Grand Jury Room, by the accused or his friends that there is no ground 
 for and no truth in the charge laid against him. 
 
 Petit Jurors would not be influenced by such tales and assurancei«, 
 coming from the accused or his friends, for the very simple reason that 
 the juror could say to them " go into the witness box and give any evi- 
 dence you have." 
 
 If it is to be admitted, that there is need for discrimination, in this 
 respect, against Petit Jurors under our present system. There can and 
 will not be the same reason for such discrimination, under a Statute 
 which will make ourpi'esent Grand .1 urors liable to serve as Petit Jurars. 
 
 It is evident, however, that if there are case.«, where the Petit Jurors 
 could be allowed to separate, without any fear of justice and the public 
 interest being ill-served ; there are, on the other hand, cases where it 
 would be safer and even ac^cessary to keep the jury togeth 'r ; cases for 
 instance which excite public feeling and prejudices, and in which public 
 opinion is either divided or runs, all against or-all in favor of the accused, 
 [involving capital punishment, it would also be well to prevent the jui^y 
 j from separating. 
 
 Under such circumstances thejurors themselves, would be theifirst 
 
 I to understauG: the necessity of isolation from the rest of an excited oom- 
 
 iiinity, and they would gracefully accept a situation of enforced .seclu- 
 
 lion,' made necessary not by any judicial or statutory assumption that 
 
36 
 
 they were men unworthy of trust and ready to sell their consciences, but 
 by a prudent desire to keep the jury removed I'rom all undue influence 
 of public' opinion, and thus enable them to maintain a position of perfect 
 neutrality between the accused and the State until they had returned 
 their verdict. 
 
 In the different States of the Union the question of the freedom of 
 the jury is being rapidly solved in favor of the latter. It is an accepted 
 rule in some of the Criminal Courts of the States, that, even in capital 
 cases, the mere fact that jurors have separated from the ofHcer having- 
 them in charge during adjournments of the Court, or finding their deli- 
 berations is not ground for a new trial. It is necessary to show that such 
 separation was for an improper purpose The true rule, however, which 
 obtains generally in all the States, is that it is left to the discretion of the 
 judge to say Avhether the jury are to be permitted to separate or not. 
 
 The judges make considerable use of this discretionary power of 
 discharging the jury upon the adjournments of the Court from day to day, 
 exercising it in some instances in capital cases. 
 
 In Pennsylvania, the practice is not to confine the jury during the 
 hearing of the evidence, in a trial of offenses not capital. 
 
 The Statute of Indiana permits the separation of the jury during the 
 trial, with the consent of the prisoner, without their being in charge of a 
 sworn officer, and it provides that " when jurors are permitted to sepa- 
 rate after being empanelled and at each adjournment they must be 
 admonished by the court that it is their duty not to converse among 
 themselves nor to suffer others to converse with them, on any subject 
 conneeted with the trial, or to form or express any opinion thereon until 
 the case is fully submitted to them." 
 
 In Minnesota the jurors enjoy a large measure of freedom. They I 
 are allowed to go at large, in all cases, where no special reason exists fori 
 denying them the right to separate. The experience of this State iii 
 regard to trial by jury is most favorable and satisfactory. The Attorneyj 
 (3reneral Hon. M. E. Clapp is the authority for the statement that, as a] 
 rule, the liberty anjoyed by the jurors of Minnesota is not detrimental tol 
 the effective and honest administration of justice and that the confidencel 
 which the courts and the public place in them is repaid by the faithful! 
 and fearless discharge of their duties both towards the State and the| 
 laccused. 
 
 .; iln Ohio, an enactment was introduced into the criminal code in 1869,| 
 providing " that in the trial of felonies the jury shall not be permitted tq 
 
37 
 
 separate after beinu^ sworn, until discharjL^edby the court." This provision 
 <>!vidently, was not very acceptable, lor the code was soon amended, 
 enacting that " In both civil and criminal cases the courts may, in their 
 discretion, during the proijress of the trial, permit the jury to disperse 
 for the purpose of obtaining food and rest, and may in either case direct 
 them to bring in a sealed verdict, but in no case can the jury, after they 
 have retired to consider of their verdicf, be permitted to separate and 
 disperse until they have agreed." 
 
 In New York, there is no statute re([uiring the confinement and 
 isolation of juries in criminal cases. The C^ourt of Appeals of that State 
 has decided that the Court has power to permit the jury to separate 
 during the progress of a capital trial upon the application of the prisoner, 
 or upon his consent, tendered without solicitation pending the adjourn- 
 men..s of the court Irom day to day. 
 
 The general rule is that jurors shall not be permitted to separate 
 after they have retired from the bar of the court to consider of their ver. 
 diet, until they have agreed upon and delivered their verdict, except in 
 cases where they are allowed to make up and seal their verdict, and then 
 separate. 
 
 In my investigations, 1 found, wherever the restrictions on the free- 
 dom of the jury were removed, that, instead of evil results being pro- 
 duced, the public interests were well served and abetter class of men were 
 obtained to act on the jury, as citizens did not shirk the duty imposed 
 upon them, which is generally done where jurors are confined and locked 
 up till the close of trials, Commenting on the great difficulty experienced 
 in obtaining a jury in the famous Cronin case, the Chicago "Tribune'' 
 properly attributed it to the law which makes the task of a juror unrea- 
 sonably onerous, and prompts men to evade and shirk a service which is 
 tantamount to a terra of imprisonment. 
 
 The Tribune, while having no excuse to offer for those, who by evasions, 
 apologies and excuses shirked jury service in that case, says that it can- 
 not deny that jury service in Illinois amounts to imprisonment for the 
 time being. 
 
 A juror is kept away from his family and business night and day, 
 deprived of customary exercise and recreation, and subjected to needless 
 discomfort. He cannot receive a note from a business associate or a mem- 
 ber of his family until it has been inspected by the judge. He is treated 
 as a man uol fit to be trusted for a moment out of the sight of a deputy 
 sherifl^ or bailiff. When such interference with business, deprivation of 
 
88 
 
 
 Ik. 
 
 I 
 
 » 
 
 IT'' 
 
 iP i 
 I- .' I 
 
 *Tir*', 
 
 personal liberty, surveillance, and discomfort must be prolonged for weeks 
 and possibly months in noted cases it is hardly surprising that good 
 citizens forget their obligations and dodge the unwelcome duty. The law 
 itself is at fault. Jury service at best is distasteful work <o most good 
 citizens find it is time something was done to modify its disugreable 
 features. 
 
 There is no reason why Illinois should ding to an antiquated system 
 which is milking trial by jury a iarce. Other Statutes do not find it 
 necessary to treat jurors as men not fit to be trusted. In the neighbouring 
 Htate of Iowa a juror has at least up to the time of retiring to find a 
 verdict as much personal liberty as the judge. He comes intocouit in the 
 morning, takes his seat, sits through ihe day :ind then goes to his home 
 or boarding place. He can use the evening for exercise or recreation or 
 may give considerable attention to his private busines. He can read the 
 papers, but is cautioned by the judge to skip any accounts of ihe case in 
 which he is sittiug as a juror. Likewise he is admonished while out of 
 the court room not to talk with any oae about the case. The practice in 
 Iowa is to interfere with a citizen as little as possible while he is serving 
 on a jury. Trials in that State are certainly as satisfactory as in Illinois. 
 Jurors have greater freedom and comfort, aud the service is not shunned 
 as it is here by the best citizens. 
 
 From the foregoing, it must be admitted that there are very strong 
 reasons iu favor of the freedom of thejury during trials. Yet it would be 
 very difiicult to make any cast-iron statutory enactment, which would 
 judiciously meet ihe situation. The question, in my opinion, would find 
 a proper solution in the Legislature granting wider discretion to the 
 Court and ''" °s Court making ample use of its discretionary powers, by 
 allowiu'^ .y to separate when no special reason existed to confine 
 
 ther' 
 
 Art. X. — Unanimity and reduction of the Jury. 
 
 There are two features of the English Jurj;^ system in criminal mat- 
 ters, which modern legislation has left undisturbed, viz., the number 
 which constitute the petty jury and the requirement of unanimity on 
 the part of the twelve petty jurors to find a verdict. It is true that, in 
 some of Ihe States and Provinces, the Statutes provide that in civil actions 
 a verdict may be rendered by a lesser number than the whole of the 
 jury ; and also iu minor criminal cases tried before courts not of record or 
 inferior courts, the law of certain other States has provided for a reduc- 
 tion of the number of the petty jurors to six. 
 
89 
 
 But US a gonornl rule no sustained effort has, up to tho prpswit, bnen 
 I made by any Legitdature to l)ritijr about a radical reform in either direc- 
 tion. A bill wu' introduced, 80 I'ar bai'k as the year 1883, in tlr^ Stato 
 Ijcgislature of Ohio seeking to abolish the requirement of unanimity and 
 ipjoviding that the agreement of the two thirds majority of the jury 
 I should be suffieieut for a verdict ; a similar bill was also iiitrodnc d into 
 the Legislature of Pennsylvania but neither was iidoptod. It cannot be 
 |dpnied however ihat opinion is rajndly becoming ripe for a change. 
 
 The eminent Jurists and Authorities whose views h;ive bnen ob- 
 tained on the subject, are pretty evenly divided on the qufsiion ol unani- 
 mity, while but few favor the reduction of the petty jury. Unanimity is 
 not required in the jnry systems of France, (lermany and Italy nor of any 
 
 I other count' y save of England and her colonies and of tho United States. 
 A cominisH on was appointed in England in 1830 to report upon the 
 
 [Courts of common law. The rule requiring unanimity was discussed by 
 the commisHion aud in their rei^ort they state it is dilliult to defend the 
 justice or wijidom of it. They propose that the jury hs kept together 
 twelve hours and if at the end of that time nine jurors agree that this 
 shall be received as the verdict. This suggestion of the commission has 
 been allowed to lie dormant ever since aud there is apparently no effort 
 
 [ made to act upon it. 
 
 In stating his views on the subject Chs. C. Bonney, ex-President of 
 the Bar Associaiion of Illiuoic, etc , says : — " I have a very decided con- 
 [yiction ihat two thirds or thf*ee fourths oJ the jury should be permitted 
 I to relurii a verdict bolh in criminal and civil cases. A majority of judges, 
 [in I he highest courts, such as the Supreme Courts, may give judgment, 
 and it seems to me the same principle would authorize a majority verdict 
 jofajury." 
 
 It is also urged by advocates of a majority verdict that the result of 
 such a change would be to lessen crime ; for if nine could convict, where 
 it now requires twelve, the knowledge of this fact would have the effect 
 to dis(;ourage and restrain vice. Others hold that the verdict of the jury 
 ought not to depend on the opinion or the obstinacy and corruption of 
 one or two men. Under the present system one man has too much pow^er 
 and they object to a crank being allowed to cause a disagreement or a 
 I mis-trial. 
 
 According to W- W. Thornton, of Indiana, the evil results arising 
 from the law requiring a unanimous verdict are far greater than one 
 allowing a majority verdict; he says: — "Verdicts in close cover are 
 
I- 
 
 it- 
 
 40 
 
 ia~" 
 
 m 
 
 p.''; 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 nrarly always the result of compromise ; they are nothing more than a 
 majority verdict. It is contrary to human experience that twelve men 
 should agree upon a debatable question drawn in issue, and why it 
 should be required in the trial of any case, taking my experience of the 
 world, is shrouded to me in half a mystery. Questions of great moment 
 are decided by a majority rule. Laws are enacted by a majority affecting 
 the welfare of millions of people ; even the vote of one in several hundred 
 representatives of the people may determine what they shall be. War 
 involving the lives and property of millions may be so determined upon. 
 In 1876, one vote in the electoral college elected a president of the United 
 States. Why then should the life, liberty and property of one individual 
 require a more certain result than that of millions. I do not believe that 
 the chances of convicting an innocent person would be materially 
 increased. However not less than nine should join in the verdict. A 
 majority verdict would greatly avoid the possibility of packing the jury 
 in the interests of the accused or of allowing an obstinate juror to bring 
 about a disagreemeiit." 
 
 In the opinion of others the growing dissatisfaction towards the jury 
 system is to be attributed to the rule requiring unanimity for a verdict. 
 Honorable S. Gr. W. Benjamin, ex U. S. Minister to Persia, says : " That 
 the time for a change has come unless a means is found for the more 
 swift and certain operation of justice under the majesty of constituted 
 authority, the tendency to seek justice by illegal methods is likely to 
 become even more rife than it is now. Why, then, should not the petit 
 jury system be modified, both to allay this popular discontent and the 
 more effectually to further the ends of justice ? Progress implies not 
 only the application of new means to the machinery of social order ; it 
 also includes the readjustment of old methods to new conditions. There 
 is nothing to indicate that trial by jury has yet crystallized into a com- 
 pleted shape. Unknown to Asiatic races it only reached the present stage 
 of development . i England in the sixteenth century, and after a long 
 evolution and since that period the principle of unanimity in a verdict 
 has been abolished in Scotland without injurious results. 
 
 The ideal jury should represent the opinion of the public, supposing 
 the public to be throughly informed concerning the law and the facts in 
 a case. But if the public were to decide upon such complete information, 
 it is altogether unlikely that the verdict would be always unanimous. 
 Why, then, require such unanimity from its representatives, the jury ? In 
 spite of their unanimity, many verdicts have proved to be notoriously 
 
41 
 
 xxnjust. A^'^ould they have been more unjust if decided by a majority of 
 the jurors alone ? As the matter now stands justice may be, and often is, 
 traversed by a single stupid or perjured juror. 
 
 The verdict of eleven out of twelve jurors should be required in 
 awarding a capital couA'iction when the case turns solely on circumstan- 
 tial evidenc*^. Nine should suflii'e in other cases involving the capital 
 penalty, and eight in all other trials by jury, whether in criminal or civil 
 actions." 
 
 The arguments of the advocates of a change in thi« time-honored 
 feature of the jury system are thus brieily but fairly stated in their own 
 words. On their face they are exceedingly plausible ; they carry coi'.si- 
 derable weight and if no contrary considerations were entertained they 
 would apparently justify a legislative ena(;tment to abolish the ancient 
 rule requiring unanimity of the jury to lind a verdict. It is asked why 
 
 [ should not a majority of the jurors be allowed to decide the question of 
 the guilt or innocence of accused persons, since a majority of judges are 
 
 [allowed to determine questions of law and the rights of litigants. Well, 
 the fact of a majority of judges being allowed to settle legal points, and 
 determine legal rights for or against the plaintiff isuo proof of the absolute 
 wisdom of such a rule and is no guarantee that the decision of the 
 
 (majority of judges is correct beyond a doubt, or does equal justice to 
 
 jboth parties in the suit. 
 
 The Court records of this country and of the United States amply 
 testify to the fact that judges not only differ, but that majority decisions 
 )f judges are frequently up^et by another majority of judges in higher 
 [courts, until a quietus is put upon judicial evolution by the English 
 *rivy Council or by the Supreme Court of the United States ; and it is 
 bafe to add that if an appeal lay from either of these supreme bodies to 
 |till higher courts, their decisions would not always remain inviolate and 
 Inviolable. 
 
 Now, if a decision of the majority of judges, trained and learned in 
 Ihe law, are liable and subject to such transformation at the hands of 
 pother majority of judges in the higher Courts, we ask, in turn, would 
 be advisable to submit questions, involving the liberty and life of the 
 ^tizen, to a tribunal where a majority voice would prevail ? If a majority 
 able and skilled judges can err, as they frequently do, what would not 
 the possibility of error on the part of a tribunal, composed of honest, 
 you will, but of ordinary and unskilled men. And consider the injury 
 

 ^2 
 
 
 m 
 m 
 
 ml .(«. 
 
 
 
 11 Hilt'! 
 
 
 ftiicL injustice that would be perpetrated in the name of the State on 
 account of such erroneous verdicts. U alike, in civil cases, where the 
 unsuccessful litigant has the right to try and have tho decision of the 
 majority of judges reversed, the <;onvicted person is at once deprived of 
 his liberty and is made to suffer death without any alternative, for prac- 
 tically there lies ro appeal from a jury verdict on the main question of 
 the guilt or ir nocence of the accused. 
 
 One of the strongest arguments, to our mind, in favor of the rule 
 requiring unanimity, is the fact that the records of English, American, 
 and Canadian Courts can recount but few instances where unanimous 
 verdicts have been set aside on the ground of error or injustice. 
 
 It is a striking tribute io the wisdom of this feature of the jury 
 system and to the general correi^tuess and justice of jury verdicts, to have 
 the highest Courts, in nearly all case.s, maintain the decisions arrived at 
 by a unanimous jury. In civil Courts, errors even by amajority of judges 
 can be rendered and justice can be eventually obtained, if one, besides 
 having a good case, live long enough and has wealth enough to prosecute 
 it to the end. In criminal Courts errors of the jury would, in a majority 
 of cases, be fatal, if not to the libert]' ai^d life of the accused, at least to 
 his honor and reputation. 
 
 If doubt and error are allowed to fill a role in civil courts, they 
 should be strictly guarded against in criminal courts. And we consider 
 the greatest protection and best sal'eguart' gainst doubt and error to be 
 the rule requiring unanimity. But we arc ^old, that this rule sometimes 
 prevents the conviction of really guilty persons, by p lowing one or two 
 jurors who, through obstinacy, crankiness or even bribery hold out 
 against decisions of the remainder of the jury, to bring about a mis- trial. 
 True, it is not denied that such cases do happen ; but what should be 
 equally borne in mind is that the administration of justice is not only 
 bound to seek to convict the guilty, but it is also bound to offer protection 
 to the innocent and not jeopardize the life and liberty of the citizen-. 
 
 Would it be a fall measure of protection to the citizen to allow a 
 majority instead of the unanimous vote of the jury to deride his guilt or 
 innocence and determine his tate ? Certainly not Now, if it is desira- 
 ble to punish che guilty, it is on the other hand necessary not to run any 
 risk of punishing the innocent ; and it cannot be denied that to substi- 
 tute the rule of unanimity for one, only requiring a majority whether it 
 be a simple or a two thirds one, would be to very seriously increase the 
 
 
48.> 
 
 risb of enforcing. i;he law against innocent parties. Aa the distinguished 
 (Jturist ProfFat remarks ; 
 
 " It is claimed as each member of the jury is sworn to declare the 
 truth according to his conscience, that a single member, if conscientious- 
 lly impressed with a view of a state of facts different from the others, is 
 las much entitled to have that view considered as the view of the major- 
 pty. That, when unanimity is required, the facts in a case aie more tho- 
 roughly and fully investigated, with the view of bringing Ihis unanimity 
 ibout ; for if a mere majority are agreed at the first consultation, there 
 
 Tould be no necessity to deliberate and reason together with the view of 
 
 laking a unanimous verdict. When a unanimous verdict is required 
 3ach member, however insignificant, has a right to explain his views and 
 to compel the majority to listen to them, for it has well been said truth 
 Is established by investigation and delay, but falsehood nrospers by pre- 
 cipitancy ; that the verdict of twelve men, if rationally obtained, is more 
 likely to be correct than that of nine out of twelve. It is calculated on 
 [he doctrine of probabilities that the probability of error in a verdict, 
 
 ^here a majority of nine out of twelve is sufficient for a decision, is about 
 |>ne to twenty-two ; while if unanimity is exacted it is one to eight 
 [housaud ; that a decision of twelve men, when unanimous, will com- 
 
 land more respect and weight than nine out of twelve or than the deci- 
 |ion of a mere majority." 
 
 It is a safe and a most valuable principle in criminal law that before 
 
 person should be convi*ited of an offence and be deprived of the most 
 
 [acred rights that man can enjoy, life and liberty, iliere should be proof of 
 
 jis guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ; and if when ihe facts jmd evidence 
 
 |re placed before twelve men, who, we must presume, a-e coascientious, 
 
 single one of them has a doubt of the person's guilt this ought to be 
 
 i0icient to prevent a conviction. It is true there may be be a possibility 
 
 corruption and a failure of justice, but better a thousand times this 
 
 lan that any one should be uujustly stimatized and punished with. 
 
 ^nominy as a criminal. 
 
 There is no doubt, as Chief Justice Andrews of Couaeciicut stated to 
 
 jour Commissioner, that the minority of a jury by its firmness has pre- 
 
 mted a bad verdict fully as often as any minority by iis obstinacy has 
 
 revented a good one. Those wbo criticise the requirement forget tb« 
 
 ^rmer a ad animadvert only on the latter. 
 
 After a fair and full discussion of the arguments pro and con I can. 
 
Bil^ 
 
 44 
 
 ill 
 
 
 
 
 come to no other conclusion than thtt the rule, requiring^ unanimity should 
 be retained in criminal cases, on the ground that the requirement of 
 unanimity compels reflection and deliberation on the part of the jury 
 before reaching a verdict, gives their decisions a weight and stability 
 which they would not otherwise have, secures justice for the accused and 
 offers protection to the innocent. 
 
 Art. XI. — Penalties and fines fixed by the Jury. 
 
 A particularity in the jury system, which obtains in some of the 
 States, is the statutory enactment that the juries shall not only find the 
 verdict, but that they shall also determine the amount and kind of punish- 
 ment to be inflicted on the criminal. Thus the Statutes of the State of 
 Indiana provide that " when the defendant is found guilty, the jury 
 must state, in the verdict, the amount of fine and the punishment to be 
 inflicted ; where the plea is guilty, or the trial is by the Court, the Court 
 shall assess the amount of fine and fix the punishment to be inflicted." 
 
 In the State of Illinois this power is given to the jury and its exer- 
 cise is regulated by St.itute as follows : " In all cases where the punish- 
 ment shall be confinement in the penitentiary, if the »ase is tried by a 
 jury, the jury shall say in their verdict for what time the offender shall 
 be confined, and the Court, in pronouncing sentence, shall designate what 
 portion of time the offender shall be confined to solitary imprisonment, 
 and what portion to hard labor. 
 
 When a fine is also to be inflicted, the jury shall fix the amount of 
 the fine. "When either fine or imprisonment in the penitentiary shall be 
 inflicted, the jury shall determine which, and the time of confinement or 
 the amount of the fine. 
 
 "When the punishment may be either by imprisonment in the peni- 
 tentiary, or by confinement in the county jail, with or without fine, if j 
 the jury will not inflict the punishment of imprisonment in the peniten- 
 tiary, they shall simply find the accused guilty, and the Court shall fix I 
 the time of confinement in the jail, or fine, or both, as the case may] 
 require. 
 
 When the accused pleads guilty, and in all other cases not otherwise! 
 provided for, the Court shall fix the time of confinement or the amount | 
 of the fine, or both, as the case may require." 
 
 Governor Hovey of Indiana formerly Judge of the Supreme Court 
 of that State, in reply to your commissioner who sought His Excelleucy'sj 
 
46 
 
 views on the subject, said : " I favor this additional power being placed 
 in the hands of the jury, for they exercise it with more discretion and 
 impartiality than the Courts." And to corroborate his opinion the Grovernor 
 related the following incident: "No later than the other day I was called 
 upon, in my executive capacity, to pardon a convict in the States Prison, 
 who had been sentenced, on a plea of guilty, of stealing a cow, to seventeen 
 years imprisonment and twenty-four years disfranchisement. This sentence 
 was given by a Judge. The convict had just spent five years in prison, 
 when I ordered his release and gave him his pardon. T' is is an illustration 
 of the tyranny that can be exercised by Courts. Juries exercise as a rule 
 more mercy than Judges ! 
 
 Another valuable opinion on this new feature introduced into the 
 jury system of the above named States is that of Hon. Justice Grrinnel, ex 
 State Attorney for Illinois. It is deserving of special attention, as coming 
 from a man of wide and varied experience, and who has played an 
 unusually eminent and successful role as a public prosecutor. He says : 
 
 " When life and liberty are at stake I think that they ought to be left 
 to be decided by a jury. My experience is that this power enjoyed by 
 the jury is not abused. On the contrary justice is more effectually admi- 
 nistered as verdicts are often found, which if the jury did not possess 
 this right of fixing the penalty, they would, be loith to return against the 
 accused, in dread of the Court pronouncing too heavy and too severe a 
 sentence upon the prisoner." 
 
 To prevent undue leniency by the jury in the exercise of this power, 
 the law establishes and determines a minimuu of punishment under 
 which the jury cannot go in fixing the penalty. 
 
 The introduction of this feature into the jury system has been follow- 
 ed by satisfactory results and has apparently met with general approval 
 in those States where it has been adopted. It is however the opinion of 
 your Commissioner that under our jury system, as at present constituted, 
 it would be inadvisable to place this additional power in the hands of 
 our actual juries. 
 
 But under a thoroughly reformed system, with a high class of jurors, 
 it might prove advantageous to the administration of justice to empower 
 the jury in criminal cases, to fix and determine the amount and kind of 
 punishment to be inflicted on the criminal, as the jury fixes and deter- 
 mines the amount of the indebtedness or the nature of the obligati >ns of 
 litigants in civil suits. 
 

 OUA-^FTEE; IliE, 
 
 U0: 
 
 THE GRAND JURY. 
 
 I? 
 
 PI;'' 
 
 WW]" 
 
 
 
 
 tit '«^s 
 
 J->.T 
 
 ART. I. — Objections to the grand jury. 
 
 The Grrand Jury is held iu varying degrees of estimation. Not a few 
 »re of the opinion that this venerable institution has outlived its useful- 
 nees ; and that its retention, as a branch of the jury system, serves no 
 useful purpose in the administration of justice. 
 
 Hon. O. A. Gavin, U. S. Attorney for Massachusetts, said : " That I 
 people who have no experience in the Grand Jury Koom with the Jury, 
 believe that the Grand Jury is a great protection to the accused person, 
 but his experience had not brought him to that conclusion." The full] 
 Bench of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, with one exception, held that 
 as a general rule, the services of the Grand Jury were not required. 
 
 Hon. Chs. Drury of Ontario, was nt>t favorable to the «'ontinua.ni?e of I 
 the Grand Jury, on the ground that, with our systetn of preliminary 
 investigation by Magistrates, it was not necessary to go through 'the] 
 same performance before a Grand Jury. Hon. Jos. Martin, Attorney- 
 General for Manitoba, was unable to stee what advantage the Grand Juryl 
 were in any way whatever. He considered investigation before that body 
 to be an entire loss of time and money. Mr McClaren, Q. C. regarded itj 
 as ridieulous to have decisions of Magintrates and Justices reviewed by J 
 a Grand Jury. 
 
 One of the most notable advocates of the abolition of the Grand Juryl 
 is the Hon. Senator Gowan of Ontario. His utterances on the subject! 
 have given rise to consider able discussion, which has been particii)ated| 
 in, by the judges, the juries and the Press of the Sister Province. In 
 recent article, the " Globe " of Toronto deals with the situation as| 
 follows :^ — 
 
 " Since Senatdr Gowan made his assault upon Grand Juries the judi 
 ges have taken the only opportunities presented them to test publicj 
 feeling on the subject. Nearly all the grand juries this year have 'beenj 
 asked what they think of themsebres, -whether they regard themselves ofl 
 
lit 
 
 any earthly usie, and whether the expense of summoning and indomnifyittg 
 'ihem is money well laid out ? Neither the judges nor the juries appear to 
 favor abolition. Mr. Justice McMahon, stating the case to a grand jury lit 
 Kingston, rather objected to the destruction of the grand jury sytit«m on 
 the ground that no substitute is proposed He then pointed out that 'if 
 expense is the chief objection to the jury, that certainly cannot be rieitoO^Ved 
 by the adoption of the only plan of preliminary investigation available, 
 namely, that of Scotland, for the procurator-fiscal is an officer who must 
 be paid. To the objection advanced by Mr. Gowan, that the grand jury 
 might be subject to oatside influence, the judge declared that this idea 
 shocked and surprised him, as it had no doubt shocked and surprised 
 all law-abiding persons • The following is a sample opinion on the »ub- 
 je«t from the jury box. It is the decision of the Hastings Grrand Jury: — 
 '" We have taken into consideration the matter referred to in your Lord- 
 ship's charge concerning the abolition of the grand jury system, aud 
 unanimously hold the opinion that for the safety, well-being, aud inte. 
 rest of society it should be continued, believing, as we do, in the principle 
 of conserving that " which has proved to be good rather than " risk 
 something that has only theory to recommend it. It will be seen from all 
 this that the worthy Senator 's reform is not making very rapid progress. 
 As a matter of fact, public feeling regarding the grand jury is very cbld. 
 The body is very respectable, it costs but little ; it does no harm ; ahd 
 standing as it does between the prosecution and the court, it may, by 
 preventing unnecessary trials, save some expense to the ceuntry and ^o 
 a good serviciB to a man who is unjustly accused. It is true that the grajpid 
 jury seldom performs nowadays in Canada the functions formerly apper- 
 taining to it. The original purpose of the grand jury was, of course, the 
 initiation of prosecutions. In the United Slates this purpose is adhered to. 
 There the grand jury sets the machinery of the law in motion. It takes 
 cognizance of all criminal acts, and indicts for the s<me even where ho 
 magistrate ha^ intervened with a committal. But here this duty has been 
 so completely lost sight of that the other day, in Hamilton, when the 
 case of the policeman charged with shooting the mysterious stranger 
 was laid before the grand jury, there having been no preliminary inves- 
 tigation by a Magistrate, nearly everybody stood aghast, wondering 
 whether or not this procedure was correct. We have deprived the grand 
 jury by practice, not by law, of an important department of ils work. 
 Nevertheless, for the reasons already stated, public opinion favours tjie 
 old-fashioned institution. People like to know that there is a tribunal of 
 their peers standing between the magistrate and the open trial. l''hey 
 

 48 
 
 PI 
 mi 
 
 m 
 
 I'*; . 
 
 m 
 
 
 tiri-t: 
 
 
 also love to read grand jury presentments. What is there more exciting 
 than the announcement that : " We have also visited the gaol and the 
 poor-house, and are glad to report that both institutions are prosperous 
 and their inmates happy ? " It is not probable that Senator (rowan will 
 reform the grand jury out of existence just yet. The jurors of Her Majesty 
 receiA'e too small a share of publicity and are too harmless to incur the 
 hostility necessary to precipitate abolition." 
 
 Art. II. — THE GRAND JURY A PROTECTION TO THE CITIZEN. 
 
 But, if the Grand Jury has opponents, it has certainly very influential 
 and very numerous advocates. In my investigation I found that the 
 great preponderance of opinion was in favor of the continuance of the 
 Grand Jury. It was pointed out that the Grand Jury was necessary to 
 protect the individual against the whims of magistrates, or the evil designs 
 of officials who might be ill-disposed or unscrupulous. The power of 
 placing persons upon their trial is altogether too great for any one prose- 
 cutor or official to wield. As Hon. Judge Grinnell forcibly put it : " It is a 
 tremendous power, and if illegally, arbitrarily, corruptly or hastily exer- 
 cised would lead to great wrongs ; and from my personal ex;)erience as 
 a public j>rosei;utor I should regret to have to be the executive officer 
 with such stupendous power in my hands." 
 
 I fully agree with that view, regarding the necessity of an indepen- 
 dent tribunal to stand between the prosecutor and the accused, before 
 placing the latter on trial : what must be carefully provided and guarded 
 against is, not only, actual abuse, but the possibility of a])use of such 
 arbitrary power, affecting the life and liberty of the citizens. 
 
 The right of persons to demand that they shall not be put to trial 
 upon criminal charges, unless presented by a Grand Jury, regularly 
 returned to inquire into offeuces, has undoubtedly prevented many 
 unnecessary and even iniquitous prosecutions. A& Chitty, the eminent 
 authority on criminal law, remarks, there can be no doubt that "the 
 indictment is the most constitutional, regular and safe mode of proceeding 
 upon criminal charges." Judge Learned ot" the Supreme Court of New 
 York, emphasises thia when he says : " The Grand Jury is a protection 
 to the citizen. A person ought not to bo put upon his trial without good 
 ground to believe that he is guilty. If we have no grand jury then we 
 would have to depend on the opinion of some Magistrate. I would rather | 
 trust the Grand Jury." 
 
49 
 
 Mr Fisher, M. P. P., Attorney of Winnipeg, would make the questioa 
 of abolishing the Grand Jury depend largely upon the ability, and 
 integrity of the Magistrates. " But " he adds, as a rule there is a large 
 class of Magistrates who are without the necessary capacity, whose legal 
 training is insulFicient, whose judgment is not of the finest or soundest, 
 and whose decisions would often lean too much towards severity, or too 
 much towards leniency. The result would be that too large a number of 
 cases would be sent up for trial. The Grand Jury stands in the way of 
 that." 
 
 The Grand Jury, moreover, stands as a barrier to the citizen against 
 the malicious proceedings of private prosecutors, and the tyrannical and 
 corrupt action of Crown Officers. 
 
 From this point of view alone, I consider that the Grand Jury is a 
 necessary institution, and that to abolish it would take from the admi- 
 nistration of justice one of its most important and stable supports, and 
 would deprive accused persons of a tribunal, from which they could con- 
 fidently expect impartiality, independence and jjrotectiou before being 
 subjected to the expense, suffering and shame of a public trial for crime- 
 
 Art. II. —The grand jury an educator of the people. 
 
 Besides being a necessary institution for the protection of the citizen 
 the Grand Jury is useful as an educator of the people, who are thus called 
 upon to take a part in the administration of justice. " It educates them" 
 says Judge Learned " and makes them feel that the Governmoit is their 
 own. They are administering the laws ; they are deciding on the rights 
 and wrongs of accused persons." 
 
 There can be no question that the community at large derives great 
 advantage and benefit from a system that makes the people move familiar 
 with the law and its operations, that enables them to project the neces- 
 sary remedies for public evils or wants, and that makes them share in 
 the responsibility of the administration of justice. " If you leave the law 
 and its administration," says Mr. O'Brien, Attorney of St. Paul, " solely 
 to judges and lawyers, the people will have no knowledge of it, and it 
 would become an obstruse science, instead of a rule of conduct which it 
 is intended to be." 
 
 The usefulness of the Grand Jury, in this respect, is well indicated 
 j by Hon. Lieut.-Col. Gibson, Provincial Secretary of Ontario, when he 
 says : " It is the right of the Grand Jury to take notice of matters outside 
 4 
 
60 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 the ordinary administration of justice, in the shape of evils and matters 
 of public concern, requiring legislative or administrative remedy, and 
 also the inspection of public institutions. While, it is seldom that any- 
 thing practicable results from the delivrance of Grand Jurors concerning 
 these matters, there is at the same time a certain amount of safety in the 
 fact that such matters may be taken cognizance of by Grand Jurors." 
 
 The truth and force of these views and arguments cannot be fairly 
 disputed and they sufliciently establish and warrant the claim that the 
 Grand Jury serves a useful purpose in the administration of justice. 
 
 Art. IV. — DUTIES of grand .turors. 
 
 The duties of Grand Jurors are limited, in the Province of Quebec, 
 to inquiries into offences against the law, for the purpose of determining 
 whether or not there is sufficient evidence adduced to make out a prima 
 facie case against the accused, and to the inspection of the public prisons 
 for the purpose of examining their security, sanitary condition and disci- 
 pline. 
 
 In many of the States, the Grand Jury's si)here of work and 
 usefulness has been greatly enlarged. Duties of a special character are 
 imposed upon them by Statute and in many cases they are made to act 
 as Boards of Commissioners in the performapce of certain investigations 
 prescribed by law. Thus, it is the duty of the Grand Jurors in certain 
 States to inquire into the wilful and corrupt misconduct in offices of 
 public officers of every description within the county, and to aid them in 
 the discharge of this duty they are granted free access to all public records 
 of the county. 
 
 They are charged with the duty of approving of the erection of| 
 county buildings and of the incorporation of boroughs ; they must 
 examine into the condition of the county treasury ; they examine state- 
 ments of the liabilities of the county and fix the amount of tax required 
 to discharge such liabilities : they act as a board of equalization for the 
 collection of tax returns, and a board of revision for the correction of the [ 
 list of voters ; they make a rigid examination of the condition of the ac- 
 counts of the collecting officers of the county, dockets of justices of the I 
 peace and all matters relating to the general school fund : they inspect | 
 the bonds of all county officers with regard to their correctness and sufii- 
 ' ciency, and examine the tax collector's books, his reports and settlements. I 
 
 In other States, the Grand Jurors are given important functions as 
 
61 
 
 peace officers. For instance it is the duty of the Grand Jurors to arrest 
 without warrant persons guilty of having for sale intoxicating liquor 
 contrary to law and to seize the same ; also to seize counterfeit bank bills 
 and implements for counterfeiting; and to arrest without warrant 
 disturbers of religious meetings. They are further obliged to diligently 
 inquire after and make complaint of all crimes and misdemeanors that 
 ahall come to their knowledge, to the court having cognizance of the 
 offence, or to some justice of the peace in the town where the offence is 
 committed. To this end they may require any person informing them of 
 the commission of a crime, to make information under oath, and may 
 administer the witness' oath to him ; and when they meet to advise 
 concerning any offence committed in their locality they have all the 
 powers of a justice of the peace, when holding court to commit for 
 contempt. 
 
 AllT. V. — The numbkr of grand .turors. 
 
 Although it is very generally admitted that the Grand Jury is a 
 necessary institution and plays a useful role in the administration of 
 justice, yet there is a marked want of uniformity in the number o'' jurors 
 which is made to constitute that body in the several Provinctis and 
 States. There is a growing tendeni^y to reduce the ancient number of 
 twenty-four. 
 
 The Provincial Statute of Manitoba, unlike that of Ontario and Que- 
 l>ec, which summons twenty-four Grand Jurors, enacts that " the panel 
 of the Grand Jurors to be summoned for any sittings of a court, shall be 
 made from the Grand Jury list in the Jurors' book, by taking therefrom 
 the names of eighteen persons, two thirds of whom shall be composed of 
 persons speaking the English language and the remaining one third of 
 persons speaking the French language. " Chief Justice Taylor of the 
 Queen's Bench of Manitoba, in calling attention to this reduction assured 
 me that no inconvenience or disadvantage had resulted on account of this 
 change, which is a step in the direction of wise reform. 
 
 In the State of Indiana it was enacted in IStS that " a Grand Jury 
 shall be composed of six reputable freeholders and residents of the 
 county, and at least five must concur in finding an indictment," His 
 Excellency A. P. Hovey, Governor of that State, stated that no detriment 
 to any interest public or private results from the reduction and he added ; 
 " there is no reason to keep the number of the Grand Jury up to twenty- 
 four, for I find that a smaller number act as efficiently as a larger body." 
 
63 
 
 
 
 Hon. L. T. Mieheuer, Altorney-Genoral of Indiana corroborates this 
 statement and says that " their Grand Jury ol'six seems to work us well 
 as the common law number." Chief Justice Mitchell, of the Supreme 
 Court, while protostinj^ aj^ainst the nbplitionof the Grand Jury, sayH that 
 " there is no reason why the number should not be reduced." 
 
 In Virg'inia the Grand Jury for a special term may consist of six ; 
 and Chief Justice Lewis of that State says that " there is no necessity of 
 having such a large number as twenty-iour to constitute it." This is also 
 the opinion of Chief Justice Minshall, of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and 
 of his colleague Judge Spear who says : " I do not think it is necessary 
 to have the panel I'onsist of twenty-three. Our law (of Ohio) requires 
 fifteen, twelve of whom agreeing can find an indictment, and it works 
 well." 
 
 In certain States the number has been fixed between certain limits. 
 Thus, thirteen and fifteen, fifteen and seventeen, fifteen and twenty, 
 sixteen and twenty-three, seventeen and twenty-three, eighteen and 
 twenty-three. "What the objoci ofthis margin may be is not very clear. 
 It certainly can serve no useful i>urpose, for it is much more satisfactory 
 to have the law fix a precise and definite number, whether small or large. 
 This has been done in many of the States where the number is definitely 
 determined at twelve, fifteen, sixteen and eighteen. 
 
 It will thus be seen that there is a general movement towards a 
 reduction of the Grand Jury. Wherever a change has been effected iu 
 this direction, the results have been satisfactory and have fully justified 
 the reform ; and wherever the old number has been maintained, there 
 appears to be a general desire for a reduction, for as Judge Learned remarks, 
 " there is no special virtue in the number twenty-three." Twenty-four 
 or twenty-three men are altogether too many to be called upon to perform 
 the task assigned to the Gjj^aud Jury, Fewer men would form a better 
 Board of Enquiry. 
 
 The majority of the Bench of the Supreme Court of Minnesota urged 
 that the Grand Jury be reduced to seven or nine, of whom a mnjority 
 might find an indictment. In view of these w^eighty opinions, supported 
 by wide and satisfactory experience, I cannot but conclude in the words j 
 of Chief Justice Beasly of New Jersey that " the number of the Grand | 
 Jury might be reduced without causing any injury." 
 
68 
 
 Art. VI. — OuoANizATioN of the CJrand Jury. 
 
 1. — Quali/icntion of Cnind Jurors. 
 
 Under our present Statute, only those persons are ciualilied to serve 
 as Grancl Jui n's, who are placed on the assessme-'t rolls either as 
 proprietors of immovable property oi' a total value above thr.M^ thousand, 
 two thousand and one thousand dollars, aeoording- to location in the 
 Provinre ; or as occupants or tenants of immovable property of annual 
 value above three hundred, one hundred and lifty, and one hundred dollars, 
 also according to lo»'ation. 
 
 in a previous t>hapter, treating of the qualifications of petit jurors, 
 it was urged that the Statute should establish no difference in the quali- 
 licntions of persons to serve as Grand or Petit Jurors. All the authorities 
 consulted on this feature of our system, were unanimous in declaring 
 that Clrand and Petit Jurors should be placed on the same footing, as 
 regards (lunlification for jury service. As a matter of fact the Statiites of 
 the several Provinces and of the diflerent States demand no higher 
 (lualilication for Grand Jury service than for Petit Jury service. The 
 provisions governing exemptions from jury duty also apply equally to 
 Grand and Petit Jurors. 
 
 2. — Selection, Drau'iii<^ and Summoning of frnuid Jurors. 
 
 Our Statute gives the Sherilfor siimmoning olficer the same unqua- 
 lified power of selection in the case of Grand as well as Petit Jurors, 
 What has previously been said in regard to the selection of the lists of 
 Petit Jurors, is also of general application to Grand Jurors. The summoning 
 officer should not be entrusted with the arbitrary power of selecting the 
 Grand Jurors. The Grand Jury list should be made up by specially 
 designated offi<'ers, in the same manner as the Petit Jury list. 
 
 In some States they have what is known as a separate " Grand Jury 
 list." After the regular selection of the general list of jurors for the 
 county by the proper authorities, the latter prepare a special list, which 
 consists of a choice selection of names of persons from the general list, to 
 serve only as Grand Jurors. From this " Grand Jury list, " the drawing 
 is made whenever a panel is required. 
 
 In Kentucky the court at each term, appoints three qualified persons 
 to act as jiiry commissioners, who then and there select the names of per- 
 sons to ser-^ as Grand Jurors at the next term of the Court. From these 
 
64 
 
 names a drawing by lot is made of names of persons to serve at such term. 
 The lists are then delivered, under seal, to the Judge of the Court. In 
 Illinois, the county board in each county of the State, at least twenty 
 days before each term of the court, select twenty-three persons competent 
 to serve as jurors, to constitute the Grand Jury for the next term of the 
 court. The names of the persons so selected, are certified to the clerk 
 of the court by whom they are delivered to the Sheriff" to be summoned. 
 
 The provisions made for the drawing of a panel of Grrand Jurors, as 
 a general rule, differ in no respect from those made for the drawing of a 
 panel of Petit Jurors ; they are both usually drawn from the same box 
 or urn. 
 
 The mode of summoning the panel of Grand Jurors is similar to 
 that of summoning the panel of Petit Jurors. When the panel is drawn, 
 it is delivered to the Sheriff, to whom the clerk issues the order or 
 writ of venire facias of the court, commanding the presence of the jurors. 
 
cb:a.:fteK/ iv. 
 
 OPINIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Art. I.— Of trial by Jury. 
 
 Ilis Excellency, A. P. llovey, Grovernor of the State of Indiana and ex 
 Judge of the Supreme Court, says : 
 
 My experience of the jury system in criminal matters has taught me 
 to regard it with great consideration and to esteem trial by jury as a 
 valuable aid to the administration of justice. I have no hesitation in 
 saying, that verdicts, rendered by juries, give more satisfaction to the 
 people than decisions pronounced by the Courts. 
 
 It takes from the Court the odium of decisions which would be adverse 
 to public opinion. 
 
 A particularity in the system, which obtains in the State of Indiana, 
 IS the fact that our juries not only find the verdict, but they determine 
 the amount and kind of punishment to be inflicted on the criminal. And 
 I favor this additional power boing placed in the hands of the jury, for 
 thoy exercise it with more discretion and impartiality than the Courts. 
 
 No later than the other day I was called upon, in my executive 
 capacity, to pardon a couvirt in the States Prison, who had been sentenced 
 on a plea of guilty of stealing a cow, to seventeen years imprisonment and 
 twenty-four years di franchisement. This sentence was given by a Judge. 
 
 The convict had just spent five years in prison, when I ordered his 
 release and gave him his pardon. This is an illustration of the tyranny 
 that can be exercised by Courts. Juries exercise, as a rule, more mercy 
 than Judges." 
 
 Hon, J. Vf. Herron, United States District Attorney for the State of 
 Ohio, says : — 
 
 *' I have no doubt about the policy of the Jury system in criminal 
 cases and would not have it abolished. My impression is that an intelli- 
 gent body of men, taken from the community, are better calculated to 
 pass judgment upon the credibility of witnesses and the force of their 
 testimony than the Courts. 
 
M 
 
 ■■(„ 
 
 ■ 4 
 
 The Prosecuting Attorney, as a general rule, thinks that every man, 
 brought before him, is guilty and tries him with that conviction or pro- 
 judice in his mind. Then I think Judges are, to some extent, liable to be 
 swayed and influenced by the same feeling. " 
 
 Hon. D. K. Watson, Attorney-General for the State of Ohio, says : — 
 " After giving the subject considerable thought and consideration, I 
 have had to come to the conclusion that it would be unwise to do away 
 with the jury system in the administration of justice. True there may be 
 abuses, and grave ones, crop up in its exercise ; but, on the whole, it ren- 
 ders too great service to be abolished. " 
 
 Chs. C. Eonuey Esq. ex President of the Bar Association of Illinois 
 and member of the Executive Council of the Bar Association of the United 
 State?, says : — 
 
 " Whenever and wherever the Courts have been made responsible for 
 the character of their juries, causing them to be selected by commissioners 
 appointed by themselves or by the Sheriff under their direction, the jury 
 service has been eminently satis-factory ; but whenever any political 
 agency has been permitted to select Grand or Petit Jurors for the Courts, 
 the juiy service has been impaired, and in the great cities has become 
 corrupt, in some instances, to an almost incredible extent. 
 
 In the Federal District and Circuit Courts, which are held in all the 
 States of the Union, and the Judges of which hold office during good, 
 behavior, the jury system exhibits its greatest excellence. 
 
 The Grand and Petit Jurors in a great city like Chicago have always 
 been, with very rare exceptions, men of more than average intelligence 
 and respectability. 
 
 I am also convinced that long judicial experience does, to some 
 extent, unfit a Judge to decide many questions of practical every-day life 
 and that an intelligent upright jury are a very important aid to the Court 
 in the determination of such quet-tions. 
 
 I am therefore decidedly in favor of retaining the jury system in 
 the administration of justice." 
 
 Hon. Justice Julius S. Crinnell, of Chicago and ex-State Attorney 
 for Illinois, says : 
 
 " In criminal matters I d(» not believe that the English jury system 
 has outgrown its usefulness. Although I am no admirer and no advocate 
 of trial by jury in civil cases, I am not in favor of doing away with the 
 system in the'administration of criminal justice. 
 
57 
 
 I think the system adopted in this State is a good one. The objec- 
 tions which its execution may give rise to, are to be attributed to the 
 Court and not to the Law. 
 
 Under our system the jury as well as finding the verdict, fix the 
 penalty in all felony cases. The law establishes and determines a mini- 
 mum of punishment under which the jury cannot go in fixing the penalty , 
 
 In cases of misdemeanor, however, the Judge exercises the right of 
 determining the amount of punishment to be inflicted upon the prisoner. 
 
 When life and liberty are at stake I think that they ought to be left to 
 be decided by a jury. My experience is that this power enjoyed by the 
 jury is not abused, on the contrary, justice is more efloctually administered 
 as verdicts aio often found, which if the jury did not possess this right of 
 fixing the penalty, they would be loath to return a verdict iigaiust the 
 accused ; in droad of the court pronouncing too heavy and too severe a 
 sentence upon the prisoner. " 
 
 Hon. "VV. L. Learned, Judge of the Supreme Court of the State of New 
 York, says : 
 
 '■ I am decidedly in favor of trial by jury in criminal matters. I 
 think it would bj dangerous to entrust the trial of important criminal* 
 castas to a judge or to judges. A judge, accustonti^'d to try criminals without 
 a jury, would become hard and would lose sympathy with the alleged 
 offenders. I think that something of this is seen in the case of such 
 Magistrates as Police Judges; that is the case of officers to whom is 
 entrusted the trial of petty ofienders. And I believe that one of the very 
 best protections which a citizen has, is that he is entitled when charged 
 with crime, to a trial by jury, a body of men summoned for the occasion 
 and discharged when the occasion is over, to mingle with his fellow 
 citizens again. 
 
 They may someHmes make illogical work, rendering verdicts which 
 are not quite consistent with an accurate view of the testimony ; but 
 they reach arongh justice which, when it tends towards mercy, is better 
 than logical conclusions. 
 
 For instance I once tried a man for murder. On the evidence he was 
 either guilty of murder, or guiltless on the ground of accident. The jury 
 found him guilty of manslaughter in the fourth degree. But I was quite 
 satisfied with the result under the circumstances. I therefore think the 
 jury system should be retained." 
 
 Isaac Campbell Esq , M. P. P., Attorney of Winnipeg, says : 
 
68- 
 
 " In criminal trials intent is the gravamen of the case and the jury is 
 the best factor to discover it. If cases were left to a Judj^e, his decision 
 would not have the same weight as those of a jury. I am consequently in 
 favor of retaining the system of trial by jury." 
 
 Hon. A. S. Hardy, Commissioner of Crown Lands of the Province of 
 Ontario, says : — 
 
 " It is perhaps impossible to spoak upon this subject entirely free from 
 the opinions or perhaps prejudices, formed or conceived during a consi- 
 derable practice in Courts constituted withjuries. 
 
 " So long as the prisoner has the option of trial by jury, little, if any- 
 thing, can be said against the trial of criminal cases by a Judge where 
 the prisoner consents, but if ihe prisoner were shut ofl' from this option 
 and if in a few notable cases trials before a bench of three or five Judges 
 were to miscarry according to popular view or popular prejudice, the 
 demand would be very strong, and I think irresistible, for the restoration 
 of trial by jury. What would be the result upon the popular mind if on 
 a trial for murder three of the Judges were for conviction and two for 
 acquittal? Would it be possible to carry out the extreme penalty of the 
 law in such a case ? I do not think so. Or, again, would it be deemed 
 possible to impose upon a bench of Judges forced unanimity? I doubt it. 
 Probably too it would be found that the view taken by a bench of 
 Judges would be too severe and strictly technical and not sufficiently 
 flexible or elastic as compared with the practice which has obtained and 
 which always will obtain in criminal cases tried by juries. The respon- 
 sibility is not deemed to be individual but general in the case of a jury 
 trial and allowances can be made therefore for the weaknesses of human 
 nature, which perhaps could not be made by a more limited tribunal or 
 where the strict technical rules of law would be applied in all cases. 
 
 Judges too seldom now insist upon a jury finding a verdict after they 
 have announced their inability to agree. This frequently occurs, but 
 upon a further intimation that they are not able or are nor likely to 
 agree, they are discharged. 
 
 Upon the whole I am, however, of opinion that in this Province no 
 tribunal, even though selected from a very able bench, could be substituted 
 for trial by jury with satisfactory results, I have not much doubt but 
 that with all its defects it is the mode of trial which is more nearly in 
 consonance with popular opinion than any other that could be devised. 
 
 I do not believe it is expedient to abolish jury trial in criminal cases. 
 It has been so long an institution of the English speaking people, that i 
 
69, 
 
 auy substitute would not be acceptable to them. Trial by the Courti 
 would not be a satisfactory substitute. The people would not acquiesce in; 
 thti result as readily as in that determined by a verdict. I think if thei 
 Court alone tried the accused, that fact would become a source of irritation ; 
 aud district Judges are apt to become severe, inflict heavy penalties, or, 
 regard all persons accused by the offioers of the Court with suspicion, their 
 decision would not be as readily acquiesced in as the verdict of a jury." 
 
 Hon. J. A. S. Mitchell, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indiana), 
 
 says : — 
 
 " In response to the enquiries submitted by you to the judges of the 
 Supreme Court of Indiana and as expressing my individual A'iews briefly, 
 permit me to say, " that trial by jury in criminal cases could not safely 
 bo dispensed with, nor could the jury system be uboiished without greatly 
 impairing the confidence of the people in the admiui-tration of justice. 
 The jury is essentially the people participating in, and becoming respon- 
 sible for the administration of the law. It forms the connecting link, 
 between the courts and the public, and familiarizes the ]jeople with judi- 
 cial methods. To abolish the jury system would be to divorce the Courts 
 from the people, and estrange the pcoplo from the Courts." 
 
 Hon. B. J. Magruder, Judge of the Supreme C3art of the State of 
 Illinois, says : — 
 
 " The old method of trial by jury is the best in all criminal cases and 
 the jury system should by all means be retained in the administration 
 of justice. " 
 
 Hon. L. L. Lewis, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of 
 the State of Virginia, says ; — 
 
 " As the jury system is the best of all methods of trial, it should be 
 preserved. " 
 
 F. Mowat, Esq., Shorilf of the City of Toronto, says : — 
 
 "I have been Sheriff" of Toronto about two and one half years, and 
 during that time a large ntimber of cases of all kinds have been tried in 
 the Courts which I have attended as Sheriff, and I believe that in the 
 great majority of cases the verdicts have been what would have been 
 arrived at if the cases had been tried by a Judge or Judges. The tendency 
 of mobt juries is towards mercy and sometimes there is a desagreemcnt 
 where a Judge might not hesitate. In cases of desagreement, after locking 
 the jury up for some hours, the Foreman is asked by the Judge, if there 
 
60 
 
 is no chance or hope of <i'n agreement and, if in the opinion of such Fore- 
 man there is not, the jury is discharged and (he prisoner is again tried at 
 the next court. On the whole I think the jury system works well here. " 
 
 lion. B. W. Lacy, Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, 
 says : 
 
 " The jury system is the safest ; ani, spooking generally, the tribunal 
 to be preferred in criminal matters. Not without some imperfections, but 
 it is freer from unwholesome bias, than other device. In a long exper- 
 ience as a^practitioner, in the (criminal law, and holding a criminal Court 
 I haA'"e never known a false verdict which brought about an unjust con- 
 viction. 
 
 As Judge of the Court of Appeals T am strengthened not weakened 
 in my love' for the jury tiial. It should be r''tained as a sacred bulwark of 
 human libtrly." 
 
 rlon. C. S, Estabrook, Attorney-CJ-eneral of the State of Wisconsin, 
 says : 
 
 " AVhilo there are many objections which can be made to trial by 
 jury, still I am in favor of the system. In my experience ordinarily justice 
 is done. I would rather risk a jury than a judge in determining a 
 question of fact. I would not substitute the jury by three or more judges ; 
 forjudging from what I have seen in equity cases before judges, I would 
 prefer to abide by the decisions of an intelligent jury. " 
 
 Hon. Edward Paxson, Chief Justice of tho Supreme Court of Penn- 
 sylvania, says : — 
 
 "■ I regret, in answering the series of questions which you have sub- 
 mitted to me, that I cannot add to my replies the collective views of the 
 Judges of the Court over which I have the honor to preside ; but our 
 Court does not meet within the time indicated for my answer. I can only 
 give, therefore, my individual views, based upon som.i twenty-years judi- 
 cial experience in this country. 
 
 I am decidedly of the opinion that the jury systern should be retained 
 in the administration of justice. It has been in existence for a v*?ry long 
 time, both in this country and in England, where it originated, and has 
 been found to work fairly well. It is true I have known a number of 
 instances in which trial by jury has produced unsatisfactory results. This 
 however, I attribute, not to the system itself, but to those whose duty it 
 was to administer it. 
 
 1 think this fact is sometimes lost sight of in considering the value 
 
 uvb '^ APuar.-Air'Saa^ 
 
61 
 
 and efficiency of jury trials. No matter how perfect the system, we cannot 
 expect perfect results so long as we employ imperfect means : when igno- 
 rant and incompetent jurors are selected we have no right to expect abso- 
 lutely correct verdicts. Yet in the thousauda of cases, ciiraiaal as well as 
 civil, which were tried before me when I occupied a seat on the bench of 
 the Common Pleas of the city of Philadelphia, the number of erroneous 
 verdicts was exceedingly small, while those I regarded as wilfully wrong 
 would not amount to a dozen in number. And these were cases in which 
 there wa^ more or less of popular prejudice, or in which it was attempted 
 to enforce an obnoxious law. 
 
 This difficulty will probably exist in any system, for the reason that 
 we have to enforce it by some means of human agencies. 
 
 For myself, I would rather entrust my life and my liberty to the 
 hands of a jury, than to auy other tiibunal, The great value of the jury 
 system can but be seen and appreciated in times of popular excitement 
 which endanger the liberty of the citiznn. It was seen in England under 
 the reign of tht.' Stuarls, when the sturdy English juror stood 'like a wall 
 between the Court and the subject. 
 
 What happened then may happen again, not only in England, but in 
 its colonies and in this country. Tyranny and oppression are not neses- 
 sarily confined to any form of Government ; they may exist in a republic 
 as well as in a monarchy ; and no one is wise enough to anticipate the 
 changes which the future may bring forth. In the meantime, I would 
 let the jury system stand, as the great bulwark of the people against 
 oppression of any kind on the part of the rulers. " 
 
 Owen A. G-alvin Esq, United States Attorney for Massachusetts, 
 
 says : — 
 
 *' Replying to the questions you have submitted to me in relation to 
 the jury system in criminal matters, permit me to say, that I have had 
 some experience in defending criminals, and also some experience as a pro- 
 secuting officer, and my opinion is that the jury system should be retained 
 in the administration of justice. As a prosecuting officer I have found 
 juries to be fair, both to the prosacutiou and to the defendants, and 
 usually the verdict of the jury is satisfactory. " 
 
 Hon. Greorge N. Baxter, United States Attorney for the District of 
 Minnesota, says : — 
 
 •' I have spent two thirds of my life in prosecuting criminals ; and in 
 my experience hare never found an innocent man to suffer and very few 
 
■f;? 
 
 62 
 
 
 
 'guilty ones to escape, consequently I cannot conceiA'e of any batter system 
 
 -than the jury for the administration of justice. With our methods we 
 obtain a fair and impartial tribunal. The aggregate experience and intel- 
 ligence of twelve men are certainly of greater consequence than that of 
 one man. Of course there have been oases where jurors have gone astray 
 but if mistakes have been made, it was in favor of the prisoner. I also 
 
 ' approve of the G-rand Jury and do not see any reason why it should be 
 abolished. As a rule, institutions which have proved useful should not 
 
 ^be changed or disposed of unless better can be got to replace them. The 
 Tole entrusted to the Grand Jury should not be confined to any one offi- 
 cial. " 
 
 Hon. John G. Bisrkishire, Judge of the Supreme Court of Indiana, with 
 his Honorable colleagues Hon. Silas D. Coffey, and Hon, Walter Olds con- 
 curring, says : — 
 
 " After eighteen years experience as a nisi prius Judge, my opinion is 
 that the trial of criminal rases by jury is the safest and most satisfactory 
 way to dispose of them. It is true that once in awhile a guilty man escapes, 
 and it may be that great prejudices now and then work the conviction 
 of one who ought not to be convicted : but this is very rare. 
 
 I do not think the system ought to be abolished." 
 
 C. D. O'Brien Esq. ex-United States Attorney and ex-Mayor of St. Paul 
 Minnesota, says : — 
 
 " I consider that the jury system is not only advantageous in th« 
 administration of justice but that it is also a necessary institution for the 
 preservation of political and public liberties. For "^ight years I was prose- 
 euting Attorney, both in the county and federal ea&cb, and I never knew of 
 a failure of justice, when the case was properly prosecuted. If Jurors are 
 properly drawn and selected and the case properly prosecuted the verdict 
 of the Jury will generally represent the best sentiment of the communi- 
 ty and the highest application of human justice. That is my experience." 
 
 Hon. Murray F. Tuley, Judge in Chancery, Chicago, Illlinois says :— 
 
 " In criminal cases I would retain the present jury system, because 
 the people are attached to it and will not give it up. They think that a 
 man stands a better chance of secuiing a fair trial if he is tried by twelve 
 men of his own class. The trouble with criminal trials U not ko much the 
 hearing of the evidence as the selection of the jurors. In great cases like 
 the anarchist case, the '' boodler " case, and the Cronin case, more time is 
 taken in securing the jury than in hearing the evidence, even though 200 
 
 r|: 
 
68 
 
 or 800 witnesses are examined. I think the judge in the criminal trial 
 ought to ask all the questions touching the competency of a juror, and 
 that no writ of error should be allowed for failure to ask any particular 
 question. After he had chosen four men whom ho believed to be compe- 
 tent men, he ought to turn them over to the State and then to the defence 
 and allow them to challenge peremptorily such men as they desired to 
 excuse. Leave both sides their challenges, but stop the endless question- 
 ing to which a venire-man is put If this plan had been in operation. 
 Judge McConnell might have selected the Cronin Jury in a week, while it 
 took the lawyers seven." 
 
 S. S. Gregory, Esq. Attorney, Chicago, says : — 
 
 " The present ;u.^y system is the best method of determining the facts 
 ever devised by man. The men who would change it are dilettanti or 
 idealists and foes to republican institutionn. I think the Judges should 
 charge the jury orally and comment on the facts. Then I think a unani- 
 mous agreement would nearly always be reached. Disagreements of juries 
 usually arise from some misunderstanding concerning the facts that a 
 trained Judge could explain. As to the method of selectinjj jurorp, there 
 ought to be some reformation. In England the judge may take a man, even 
 if he has an opinion, provided he swears that he can give the case a fair 
 and impartial trial, and provided also, that the Judge beliores that he 
 swears truly. 
 
 Hon. T. A. Miushal, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and 
 Plon. Justice M. J. "Williams concurring, says : — 
 
 " I have had considerable experience in the trial of causes before 
 juries, having been a common judge for some ten years before my elec- 
 tion to the Supreme Bench. I regard the jury system with much favor. 
 Some verdicts are wrong but in a large majority of cases they are right. 
 
 The jury system should not in my opinion be abolished in the admin- 
 istration of justice." 
 
 Hon. T. W. Taylor, Chief Justice oT the Court of Queen's Bench of 
 Manitoba, Winnipeg, says : — 
 
 " I entertain a most decided opinion in favor of trial by jury being 
 retained. My practice, before I was placed on the Bench, lay entirely in 
 the Ontario Court of Chancery I was somewhat prejudiced against the 
 jury system, but from my experience as a judge, ray opinion has been 
 chan,'^ed. The more I see of its workings, and the more I consider the 
 
64 
 
 u 
 
 .7 
 
 question, I become the more firmly convinced that to abolish trial by jury 
 would be a great mistake and a positive evil. 
 
 The full Bench of the Supreme Cv^urt of the State of Wisconsin^ 
 composed of thi Honorable Chief Justices Cole and his honorable asso- 
 ciates, Justices, Lyon, Taylor, Oiton and Cassidy, concur in the view that 
 trial by jury in criminal cases should be retained, that the number of the 
 Petit Jury should not be reduced and that the requirement of unanimity 
 should be maintained. 
 
 Hon. Judge M^Dougall, of Toronto, says : 
 
 " I have no weakness for the jury system in civil cases, but in criminal 
 matters I am not prejudiced against it. So far as I have seen, jury results 
 in Ontario are satisfactory. Improvements might be made in regard to the 
 verdict whereby the jury might find a verdict of" not proven " as well 
 as one of " guilty " or " not guilty." 
 
 Hon. M. Beasley. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, 
 says : 
 
 '• 1 am of the opinion that trial by jury in criminal matters is the 
 best possible method, and that it ought to be retained, subject to the 
 right to waive the jury by cou'^ent of the parties, except in capital cases." 
 
 The full Bench of the Supreme Court of Minnesota, composed of Chief 
 Justice GilfiUan, Justices Mitchell, Dickinson, Kanderburg, and Collins, 
 concurring, says : 
 
 " Our experience is that the jury system ought to be retained in the 
 administration of justice, and our opinion is that it would be inexpedient 
 to substitute it by a trial before one or more judges." 
 
 Hon. W. T. Spear, Judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio, says : 
 
 " My opinion, strengthened by observation and experience, is that 
 the jury system, as established in Ohio, is useful, and ought not to be 
 abolished either in criminal or civil cases. I am clear that the system 
 should not be abolished." 
 
 Mr. Lount, Q. C, Toronto, says : 
 
 "So far as my experience goes, I have no complaint to make against, 
 trial by jury. I look for more impartiality from the jury than from jud- 
 ges. In Ontario an intelligent class of men are called to do jury service 
 and I find that they are quite competent to grasp and settle the issues 
 submitted to them. Where you have twelve competent and impartial men 
 to try a case there is a greater possibility of justice being done, than if 
 it were submitted to the court. Wo have criminal judges who are partial 
 
 
06 
 
 to conviction and we have judges who are partial to acquittal. I have 
 noticed that judges are inclined to be harsh, and if thay were the sole 
 arbiters of the fate of prisoners, the latter would have small chance of 
 meeting with mercy at their hands. I have had long experience, both iu 
 defending and prosecuting persons in our criminal courts, and I have 
 lound that the ends of justice were better served by the jury than by » 
 judge. It will also be found that better results are produced by a verdict 
 of conviction, found by a jury than by a judge." 
 
 Hon. Chs. Drury, Minister of Agriculture of Ontario, says : — 
 
 'I am strongly in favor of maintaining the jury system, not that I 
 think the jury is more likely to be correct in their findings than a judge, 
 but that it creates respect for the law aui sympathy for its operations. 
 AVe must consult the feelings of the people in these matters. " 
 
 Hon. W. H. Flournoy, .Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
 Ivichmoud, says : - 
 
 " I am thoroughly agreed with Beutham, the great English writer on 
 the rights of jurors, and consider that the less interference with them by the 
 judges the bitter. Our system gives as much satisfaction as any human 
 invention can. Of course I do not mean to say this as regards all the 
 details of the system, but on the whole I believe the jury system to be 
 the best iu the administration of criminal justice." 
 
 Sheriff AVinnifield of York, Ontario, says : — 
 
 " My opinion is that we should continue to adhere to the jury system 
 even with all its faults. There is a reaction in public feeling against in- 
 crt-asing the powers of judges and magistrates iu criminal matters. 
 
 Of late years there has been a tendency to increase the powers of 
 magistrates iu criminal affairs, but I believe that the country has got quite 
 far enough in that direction." 
 
 Mr. McLaren Q. C. of Toronto, says : — 
 
 " I am of the opinion that the jury system in criminal matters ought 
 to be retained. Its usefulness is not yet gone. The ends of justice areas 
 fairly well attained by a jury's verdicts as by a judgment of the Court." 
 
 Art. II,— of the qualification and treatment of jurors. 
 
 His Excellency A. P. Hovey, Grovernor of Indiana, says : — 
 " The Jurors both Grrand and Petit should be adequately compensated 
 and well cared for. The services and important duties they are called 
 upon to perform entitle them to all due consideration on the part of the 
 
66 
 
 State. If you want good i-ompotent men to nerve on your juries, i?ive 
 your jurors lair remuneration, and the ac<!ommodation men in their posi- 
 tion hare a right to." 
 
 C'hs. C. Bonney, Esq., ex-President of the Bar Assoriution ol" Illinois 
 etc., says : — 
 
 "My opinion is that as a general rule the jury sorviee has been 
 impaired by the improper treatment vvhieh is mett^d out to the jurors. 
 
 If any community would have high minded and honorable jurors, it 
 must treat them in a high minded and honoral)Ie way. The jurors should 
 be siipplied with every comfort while discharging their responsible 
 duties. Their position should be made respectable and houorable in the 
 eyes of all. The compensation of jurors has too often been si^andalously 
 small. It should be made such that a respectable member of the com- 
 munity would not feel degraded in receiving it." 
 
 Hon. Judge Grinnell and ex State Attorney for Illinois, says : — 
 
 " In the State of Illinois we endeavor to make life as comfortable and 
 as agreeable as possible for our jurors. We refuse them no comfort and 
 give them medical attendance. We supply them with reading matter, 
 magazines and all literature they may ask for, except anything bearing 
 on the trial or case. They take their meals at the hotels and sleep there ; 
 and we pay their bills. 
 
 As to the compensation they should receive, there should be no 
 question as to its being fully ample and in proportion to the time and 
 services they render the State, Their remuneration should be at least 
 from two to three dollars per day. If the State wants qualified persons, 
 that is intelligent and respectable men, to give their services as jurors, 
 the State must extend honorable treatment and offer fair remuneration to 
 the jurors, both Grrand and Petit." 
 
 Hon. W. R. Learned, Judge of the Supreme Court of New York, 
 State, says : — 
 
 " On the question of the treatment of Grrand and Petit Jurors and 
 their compensation it is difficult to answer. It will hardly do to pay such 
 compensation as to make persons seek the place. 
 
 There should be provided however good accommodation, when the 
 jurors are required to remain together during the night before the trial is 
 over. It is S' '.dom that the Court-House affords suitable rooms and hardly 
 ever any conveniencies for sleeping. They should therefore be provided 
 
61 
 
 with comfortable places tor sleeping elsowhore, usually at somo hotel or 
 tiivern. 
 
 ll i.s wroii^' to oi'i'usiou nieii, vvhoarL' requin'd to pu'Corm this irksoiiio 
 duty, any more distomlort than is inseparal)le Iroin their position. Grand 
 Jurors require little more then a good room in which to meet. As to qua- 
 lilications I can say nothing. 
 
 The requirements ol' each State and county can be judged best l)y 
 those who know the people. Of course these qualifications are only 
 imperlect means of securing intelligence and character. " 
 
 Mr. Inkest<!r, {Shin-ilFor Winnipeg, Manitoba, says : — 
 
 '' AVe make it :i point to treat the jurors with all possible considera- 
 tion. They are 8upi)lied with first class meals and good bedding In fact 
 we want to treat them as well as if they were in their own house, as it is 
 already hardship enough to take them from their business, their family 
 and homes As a rule we have a good class of jurymen ; they are paid 
 !j:2.00 a day when th(»y are selected from the rural districts and besides 
 are allowed their travi^lling expenses. Those from the city or place where 
 the court is held are paid $1.50. Those who cannot go home get paid for 
 any holiday occurring during their time of service." 
 
 Mr Fisher, M. P. P., Attorney of Winnipeg, says : 
 
 " If you want to get a clear-headed decision from the jury, it does not 
 assist to that end by subjecting the jurors to discomfort, incouyeniences 
 and annouyance. The jurors should have the best of everything that is 
 going, IIow^ are men to listen attentively to evidence and arguments, if 
 they are deprived of bodily comforts and mental recreation ? By all means 
 give the jurors the best of treatment and ample compensation. 
 
 Although it is not always the amount of education that a man 
 possesses which gives him good judgment in determining the merits of 
 a case, the jurors should, however, possess at least an elementary edu- 
 cation." 
 
 Isaac Campbell Esq,, M. P. P., Attorney of Winnipeg, says : 
 
 "Jurors should get at least $2.00 a day, with an allowance for 
 travelling expenses ; so that the mechanic, tradesman and laborer may not 
 suffer for want, and that their families may be provided for during his 
 enforced absence from home to assist the Stiate in the administration of 
 justice. 
 
 4 
 
 
C8 
 
 As for merchants and other wealthy people I might add that although 
 the sum of $2.00 would not pay them for their loss of time, they in the 
 end profit by having a more efficient administration of justice and thereby 
 securing for their persons, rights and property better protection. 
 
 Besides fair compensation, the jurors ought to have every comfort, 
 especially in sleeping accommodation, as it is necessary that the ji ry should 
 have rest and sleep to pay due attention to the evidence. 
 
 I would make it requisite for jurors to be owners of real property 
 not necessarily real estate. I would make no distinction between Grand 
 and Petit Jurors as to qualifications." 
 
 lion. Oliver Mowat, Prime Minister and Atcorney-General of the 
 Province of Ontario, says : — 
 
 " I think that everything practicable in the way of accommodation 
 should be done to make jurors reasonably comfortable. The remunera- 
 tion which they receive here is $1.50 a day. I should not be prepared 
 to advise any change here in this amount of remuneration." 
 
 lion. A. S. Hardy, Commissioner of Crown Lands, of Ontario, says : — 
 
 " The qualification required for a juror in this province is assessment 
 as owner or tenant in cities for not less than $600 ; and in towns, incor- 
 porated villages and townships for not less than $400. In iny view tliis 
 qualification is perhaps too low rather than too high. Advocates have 
 been found in the Legislature (before manhood sulfrage jirevailed) for the 
 selection of jurors dire ctly from the voters' lists without regard to other 
 qualilications than those prescribed lor a voter. The qiialification should 
 not, in my opinion ])e lower. 
 
 The exemptions to be found iu section 6 of our Jurors and Juries Act 
 {\l. H. 0. chapter 52,) are, if anything too extended : but there is no difii- 
 culty in obtaining with our i)resent exemptions and our present qualifi- 
 cations a sufficient supply of jurors, and without hardship to the indivi- 
 dual by being too frequently called upon to act as juror. 
 
 The treats of jurors by the Court has been very much modified 
 during the pencJ covered by my own practice at the bor in this Pro- 
 vince. Most of the Judges now are careful to direct that ample provision 
 y^, made for jurors who are under the care of the Sheriff, during prolong- 
 ed criminal trial. 13eds are found- for them at a hotel, meals are pro- 
 vided and as much is done for th"ir comfort as can well be suggested. 
 and this at the expense of the country. 
 
69 
 
 The machinery, however, for the selection of jurors shouhl be such 
 as not to admit of the possibility of packing the jury, or so that the indi- 
 vidual will of the ofiicer of the Court or of the ultimate selector should 
 not prevail or determine the personnel of the panel/' 
 
 W. W. Thornton, Esq., Stale Law Librarian of Indiana, says : — 
 " I think jurors shoiild be citizens exercisini^ the right of suffrage 
 within the State or Province, but not necessarily within the vicinage, 
 wherein the crime was committed, they should he able to read and 
 write the language in which the trial is conducted. Perhaps a household 
 qualification is desirable. It is well that they be tax-payers. 
 
 They should be paid a reasonable compensation, but not so large in 
 amount as to make it an inducement to persons to seek a place in the 
 jury box." 
 
 Hon. B. J. Magruder, Judge of the Supreme Court of Illinois, says : 
 "The qualifications of persons required to serve as Cirand or Petit 
 Jurors should be su«h, substantially, as arc prescribed by the Statutes of 
 Illinois. Petit Jurors in criminal cases should be paid at least |5.00 per 
 day and while restrained of their liberty, should be accorded accommo- 
 dation at the best hotel in the place of their service " 
 Hon. L. L. Lewis, Chief Justice of Virginia, says ; — 
 '' I consider that the same qualifications should bo required of Urand 
 and Petit Jurors as are prescribed for voting and holding olfice. The 
 jurors should bo reasonably compensated and when kept together 
 ought to be comfortably cared for."' 
 
 F. Mowat, Esq., Sheriff of the city of Toronto, says : — 
 " Here the great majority of Crown cases do not last more than half 
 a day ; but where one does, or is likely to last a whole day, incases of 
 felony, by direction of the Judgo, I order dinner at the public expense 
 lor the twelve jurymen, and four constables at an inn, where I arrange 
 that they shall have a table to themselves The; duty of the constables 
 is to see that no one speaks to the jurymen and that they speak no one. 
 They speak to one another but not on the subject of the trial. Where a 
 trial lasts more than a day I arrange at the public expense for one or two 
 large rooms with sixteen beds for the twelve jurymen and four constables ; 
 the latter never ' avj the jurymen trom the time the case commen''.es 
 until it is finisheu, except in Court c when they are deliberating in tlo 
 juryrcom, but as you see we make them as comfortable as we can. Ag a 
 rule our people do not object to serve. We pay one and a half dollars 
 
 1 
 I 
 I 
 
 ' 
 
 If 
 
 
10 
 
 
 If 
 
 per day and Ion cents miloage ; and, if the Coiirt lasts over one or more 
 Sundays, mileaf^'e i.s aliuwed lor each, so that tlie jurymen may spend that 
 day at home. I may add here that the ii^reat majority of our jurymen 
 are very intelliji-ent men. 
 
 In cases of misdemi^anor, Juries are allowed to disperse ; but are 
 "warned by the Judge not to speak of the case. 
 
 I may state that our Judges sit for a very long time oat.'hday, which 
 accounts for the small number of cases that last over one day. The usual 
 hour for commencdng is 9..-50 or 10 a. m. and the Court seldom rises until 
 6 p. m. and in some cases it sits until eight or even ten p. m." 
 
 lion. I). W. Lacy, Judge of the Supreme Court of Virginia, says : — 
 "The standard of qualilit^iition should be so high as to exclude the 
 ignorant and the disreputable, but the body of the peojjle should be fairly 
 represented. 1'!ie ((U(,'stion of the treatment of jurors depends upon cir- 
 cumstan(;<\s, but it sliould always be reasonabl<\ It should be such as will 
 make Ihcm to do worthily and wisll their work. lUit.vvhat is easy in a city 
 is soiaetimes impossible in back counties." 
 
 Hon. C. 1'^ I'.stabrook, AttoriH^y-d-iKsral ol Wisconsin, says : — 
 " 1 think the qualifications prescribed }>y our Statute are sullicient. 
 If the tStatiite is observed, you will <^et a very good. jury. 
 
 As to the question of condition, that r(\sts larg(dy in the discretion 
 of the Sheriff under tin' direction of the Judge. We ha\e no Statute rule- 
 liini as a matt(M of opinion, I am in favor of treating them well. My res- 
 triction would ])e only to the extent of restraining tluMn from contact 
 with the public. " 
 
 The entire Benv^h of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin urged that 
 persons before being called upon to perform jury service should be men 
 who were known to be of appro^'cul integrity, fair chara(;ter, of sound 
 judgment and well inl'orrned ; and that the seleition of jurors should be 
 made by competent i>ul)li«' oflii-ers. The jurors should receive reasonable 
 compensation and should be treated like gentlemen. 
 
 Hon. John G. Berkshire, Judge of the Supreme Court of Indiana, 
 with Hon. Silas D. Coffey and Walter Olds <'on<urring says: — 
 
 " I think that (Irand and Petit Jurors should be substantial citizens 
 and either fnudiolders or householders. By householder I mean one 
 who is the head of a faiaily. My oinnion is that Grand and Petit Jurors 
 should receive a reasonable (Compensation for their services, say i$2.50. 
 
 
n 
 
 At the same time I think tho jury should be made comfortable and, 
 at moal time, taken to their meals. The (Iraiid Jury should have a room 
 outside of the ('ourt-room in which to carry out their invcKtigjitions and 
 have a Imiliffto wait upon them and meet and adjourn from day to day 
 as thc^ir business should rcijuire. " 
 
 Hon. l*]dvvard M. Paxsoii, Chief .Tustic(> of the Snprenie Court of 
 Tcnnsylvania, Siiys : — 
 
 " The qualifii'ations of jurors here are that they shall be sober, intel- 
 li^ont juid judicious persons. To these miy'ht well be added that they 
 should know lu>vv to read and write. Some edut'ational t(!st should be 
 iipi)lied thouu'h, (o whnt extent, it is n(»t easy to determine. (Jur two 
 trreat dillicullies in the way of having competent men on juries here, 
 are : — 
 
 l.st. Tlie arcat number of uitmcs placed annually in the wheel ren- 
 ders it iilniost impossi})le lor those (sharped with the selection to ascer- 
 sain tht^ir Mtn<»ss ; and 2nd. the objection of business men to serve in that 
 capacity. The men who are best (jnalilied are the lirst to ask to be 
 (excused for })usiness itnd other reasons. And the persons thus excused 
 are the lirst to cf»mplain il' aii importiintcase in which they are interested 
 is submitted to an incompetent jury. In my opinion jury S(>rvice is a 
 duty which the citi/en owes to his country and should bo as rigidly 
 en fenced as a draft to serve in the army. 
 
 Jurors are allowed their liberty here in all cases except capital. In 
 the latter they are not allowed to separate until after the verdi(!t and 
 their discharge by th<! Court. In the mean time they are comfortably 
 housed and fed. They are allovvful a moderate (;ompensation ; about suf- 
 licient to \y.iy their reasonable expenst s. This system has worke(l w^ell 
 and I doubt if it can be improved The exj)enses of a juror sliould be 
 paid, but I should regard it as a serious mistake toincnuise their compen- 
 sation to such an extent as to make it an oliject to such jury service. In 
 such case the men who would do so, are the very ones that are not 
 wanted on juries." 
 
 Hon. Owen A.-Galvin, U. S. Attorney for Massachusetts, says: — 
 " The Clrand and Petit Jurors should in my judgment possess the 
 qualihcations required iii this State. Section 1. Chap. 170, Public Statutes 
 of Massachusetts shows the (^ualilications ^nd exemptions. 
 
 Tho jury should receive a reasonable compensation for their attend- 
 ance and travel : not enough io induce people to serve ui)on the jury for 
 
 ;?fl«l 
 
4 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 the amount of the (iompftiiMation, hut a Kum Hufliiuont to roim])ur.so the 
 average man for the liinc! sjjout in attcMidancc; upon thti Court, fn 
 MasHachuKolts the .sum of three dollarn Ih paid. This is Just al)out th<i 
 averag<j ]:er diem vvagen of tiie KkiHed meehauie and 1 think a lair sum. 
 The aecommodatiou given tlie jurorn, should, as far as food and care an^ 
 oonceruod, h(s the best avaiiahle." 
 
 Hon. Charles U. Andrews, Ciiief Justice of the Supreme (V)urt ol' 
 (Jonnectii'ut, says : — 
 
 I would have no one eligihle to be a juror who was not at hiast 
 thirly years of age, esleomed in their community as men of good chara(;ter, 
 approved integrity, of sound judgment and fair edu<'ation. 
 
 The comptjnsation ought to be t-ut'lias would amply defray all ust'ful 
 cxjx'nse ; and no more .luiy scrvitc! ougbt to Ix; reg:ird('<l as the 
 I erlbrmance of a duty, ami not an employjuent from which wages are to 
 be derivi'd. 
 
 Hon. .Iudg(! Longeiuscker, State Attorjicy lor Illiiioi.-^, says: 
 
 " I think the systi'm as i)rai-tised iii Illinois might b<^ improved, lu 
 th(^ first place I would chang*; th(! nu^thod of sc^-uring a jury. I would 
 ha VI! the .Iudg(; conduct the examination of the jurors. My plan would 
 bi; to put twelve men in the box to bo examincMl by the Judge as to their 
 ^|ualilications. Su<h as the Judge should lind in any way unciualilied should 
 b(; excused and tluiir ])laces lilled. AVhen the Judge found twcdve com- 
 petent m(^n th(! State's Attorney should have the right of p(M'em[)tory 
 challenge. Thci va(;ancies in the. box caused by the exercise of this right 
 would then b(! lilhid by the Judge. When twelve men satisfactory to thi; 
 Stat(i were secured the delent;e should have the right of i)eremptory 
 challenge to the same extent as at present. The twelve nuni secured by 
 this process would be the Jury. In almost any case a Jury would be 
 secured in a day, with the; <'.ertainty that asgood a jury would l)e obtained 
 as by th(! i)resent method. A Jury being secunul in this mann<ir, I would 
 re(iuire tie vote; of only uuw. I'or a verdict. Whatc^ver nineof the twelve; 
 agreed to should lonstitute the verdict. If the Jury stood 8 to 4, 8 to 5, or 
 Q to there should be a disagreement and a new trial. 
 
 The great advantage oithis plan would be that it would make Jury- 
 bri))ing practically imjxjssible. Four men would have to be " fixed" to 
 Bocure :i disagreement, instead of one, as at pre.sen*^. It would be pretty 
 hard to got four (corrupt jurors on a panel of twelve." 
 
 Hon. Chs. Drury, Minister of Agriculture, Ontario, says : 
 
t;! 
 
 "lam not ill favor of hii^li propcMty (lualilicatious for jurors. Tho 
 <|ualili<*ation, r(!quiro<l by tho Ontario Statute, in sulli(;i(;ntly Wurh. IJndo-r 
 our systiMu tho soioctorH havo powor to rojoct piirHous who, although hay- 
 iii<^ tJio prop(!rty (jualiliration, havo not, in tho opinion ol' suoh soloo- 
 tors, HulUci<M)t intollij^onoo or oduration or charaotor to ontitli^ thoni to 
 .siirvo on jurioH. This naturiilly ro(|uiros, on tho part oj" tho Ho!o«:tnrs, a fair 
 ;i((|uaintan<'o of th(j j)0()j)io 
 
 Whihi Hoolion 2*5 of our tSlatuto does not positi vol y direct iho h(^st 
 <l;iKS of <'itiz(!ns to h(» lakoii lor tho (Jrand .lury, such, nt all ovonts, \h 
 aliriost univt rsally tho i)ractico. Tho judirc' would oi)o.)i his oyos if h(!.saw 
 thi'in r<^)Iafod by <ho pr<?Kont Pot it .lurors. 
 
 Juryrnon shouhl bo troatod vvitli all tho rospect and ronsidoratioii 
 which IJH'ir position ontitles thoin to. Whou act^oninjodation cannot b(5 
 •jfivon in tho oourt-hous(5 tho jury oiiifht to lie .Mipi)licd with coinl'ortablo 
 <piart(»rs, undor kuIUi iont "guards, in hotels. 
 
 As to 11m! (|uostion ol' roniunoration 1 think tjiat (irand and I'otit 
 •lurors should be [)l!ic(;d upon the same footing, as far as pay isconi^^rnod ; 
 and that $2,00 1)0 tht! niiniinuni of llx'ir allowance per diem with thtdr 
 travollinj^ exponsosat t«»n cents per niihf." 
 
 Hon. W. T. Spears, Iud<.^e of tho Suproin(» (!ourL of Ohio, says : — 
 
 " Our law r qiiiros only that tho juror bo a citizen in order to bo 
 oiifril)l(>. ()l"(-onrso (^ach juror is subject to ohalloni^'o for statutory oausoK. 
 Tl>o system works woU in tlio main, especially in tho smaller citit^s, in 
 iowni*, and in rural sections. Th(,'r(; is friction in tho larf((;r cities and 
 much dissatisfacMion. It is in groat nuiasuro ndioved by thof(doction oi' 
 jurors by a Jury commission, composed of highly roputabltj ciliz<!ns, now 
 in vogue in many of our largo citi(;s. 
 
 (iood treatmeiit, as to accommotlation when in charg(i of an oflicin, 
 should bo actHirded. Tho old harsh rulo I do not favor. As to com[)onsa- 
 tion, this should bo enough to j)ay or<linary expousiis for travel and 
 l)oarding in moderate, style, but not suni»;iont in amr)unt Jo afford a 
 tcunptation for persons to get upon the panel by efforts of their own." 
 
 lion. T. A. Minshall, Chief Justice of the Supremo Court of Ohio, 
 
 says : 
 
 " They should be reasonably compensated for their time and 
 labor, but not so as to make a scat desirable on that account. The juror 
 should understand that he is discharging a duty in which he has an 
 interest as well as the public." 
 
 '& 
 
 
74 
 
 # 
 
 it 
 
 Sherid" Winnificld, York, Onturio, siiys : 
 
 " The iisugci for York iiiid Toronto i.s i(» send jurors to hoU'ls lor 
 their meals and lodging^; they are then jjlai'i'd in charg-e of constables 
 specially sworn. We endeavor to give them first class treatment and to 
 seenre them the best aeoomodation. Besides the fee of ILTjO which jurors 
 receive per day, we pay them a mileage of ten cents with the privilege 
 of returning home on the eve of holidays or Sundays As regards the 
 qualification of jiirors, I think, that ii' it were possible, an educational 
 test would be preferable to any other. With us, it is a money qualifica- 
 tion and I do not think that it is necessarily very satisfaciory. " 
 
 Mr. Lount, Q. C. Toronto, says : — 
 
 " Fifteen years ago when jurors were of a lower standiird. justii-e was 
 sometimes perverted, as ignorant men can be pervert(Ml nnd cannot resist 
 improper approaches. 80 that the higher the standard of (jualification, 
 the surer will you be to have an honest and efCective administration of 
 justice. I I'annot understand why jurors should not Ix^ treated and remu- 
 nerated as men otight to be who render valuable service to the Province. 
 To act otherwise would not only be unfair to the jurors, but it would not 
 serve the ends of justice. This system of harsh treatment might have 
 been good enough for the feudal ages but it is certainly not acceptable 
 in these modern times. Jurors should get every accommodation that they 
 get at home. 
 
 As to the question of remuneration T hold that jurors should be well 
 paid. The families of men who are called by the Province to aid it in 
 administering justice should not be made to suH'er for the benelit of the 
 State. The State should pay for what it gets." 
 
 Hon. T. AV. Taylor, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of 
 Manitoba, says : — 
 
 " In this Province jurors receive 12.00 per day, i^xcept those living 
 within the limits of the «'ity or town in which the court is held, who 
 receive $1.50 per day. Those who live out of the city or town, get, in 
 addition mileage ; if within ten miles five cents a mile, if more than ten 
 miles, ten cents a mile. 
 
 Mr. McLaren, Q. C, Toronto, says : — 
 
 It is dililcult to get anything but a property qualification for jurorst 
 and if that is to be retained it ought to be raised. I think an educational 
 test ought to be exacted, as such would tend to elevate the character of 
 the jury and create an inducement for the intelligent classes to serve: 
 
76 
 
 I 
 
 for at present these classes consider it a drudg-ery to serve on Juries and 
 they resort to every means to j^et rid oi'the service if they can. I believe 
 that the system of selei^tinj^ jurors by impartial ofh(;ers in this Province 
 is prefora))le to the one that exists in Quebec, where the jurors are taken 
 indiscriminately from the assessment roll. 1 tliink it is a disgrace to the 
 administration of justice to see the way jurors are treated. I am i;ertainly 
 ill favor of giving them better pay and better accommodation." 
 
 Hon. Judge MacDougall, Toronto, says : 
 
 " I think the law should exact not only ft property qualification for 
 p(Tsons to serve as jurors, but also an educational test requiring jurors to 
 1)0 able to read and write. 
 
 J am one of those wiio have always advocated and espoused the cause 
 of the Cirrand Jury ; for I believe that the Graiul Jury is a valuable educa- 
 tor of the people. I would like to see jurors given good accommodation 
 nnd fair remuneration ; say .'|2.00 a day while on service." 
 
 Hon. A. J. "Waterman, Attorney-Creueral for Massachusetts, says : 
 
 No person ought to be allowed to sit upon any jury or serve in any 
 cnpacity as a juror, bvit tliose possessing a good <'()iumou education. 
 
 AuT. III. — Of tiik freedom of the jury. 
 
 Hon. John (1. J^erkshirc, Judge of the Suprems; Court of Indiana, 
 with Hon. Sihis D. CofFey and Hon. Walter Olds coiu;urriug says: — 
 
 " My jiidgment is that it is entirely sale and prop(ir to give Petit 
 Jurors th(Mr liberty during the progress of the trial, during the Court's 
 recesses under the proper admonitions of the Court at each recess, ex(;ept 
 it be in cases where life is involved, or ])ossible imprisonment in the 
 IVnitentiivry, and where the case is attracting considcraljle attention from 
 tht^ i)ublic. 
 
 After the Petit Jury have gone to their room to consider of their 
 verdict 1 think they should be put in charge of a bailiff and kept under 
 his charge until they have agreed or are discharged." 
 
 Hon. Owen A. Galvin, U. S. Attornev for Massachusetts, savs : — 
 " 1 would be in favor of giving Petit Jurors their liberty during the 
 
 progress of a trial in all cases except capital cases." 
 
 Hon. J. W. Herron, U. S. Attorney for Ohio, says : — 
 
 " Our method of selecting jurors hi the State of Ohio is a good one 
 
 and is a safeguard against unqualified men acting or serving on our 
 
 juries. • 
 
t6 
 
 Wo give our jurors thoir liborty during tlie progress of trials in all 
 cases except iji those of niurdi^r in the first degree. They are discharged 
 at thi> Jioon and evening adjournments of the Courts and are allowed to 
 go to their homes and to atttnid to their busiiiess aU'airs, with injunction;s 
 to have and hold no intercourse with persons outside regarding the case. 
 
 Our experienri* of this system is highly satisfactory, for we find that 
 the course of justice is not interfered wilh, that the publii; interests are 
 well served and that we g*t a })etter (^lass of men to act on the jury, as 
 the cili/ens do not, as elscAvhere, dodge and use every means to shirk th(! 
 duty impof-ed upoii them, which they would also do if they were to he 
 confined and locked up till the close of trials." 
 
 Chs. (I. I'onney Esq., ex-President of the liar Association ot Illinois, 
 etc. says : — . 
 
 " As to the liberty which a juror should enjoy during the trial of 
 criminal cases, I think no fixed rule should b(5 established ; but it should 
 bo left to the discretion of the Court, with the consent of counsel, to regu- 
 late that matter according to the cirtnimstances of the occasion. 
 
 I think experience would bring any one to that coiKdusirn. The freedom 
 which, at a time of perlect publii-calm, might properly be given to a jury 
 would, in a time of public excitement be highly perilous; any liberty 
 to which the Court and the counsel on both sides should agree, and 
 would not be likely to do harm in any case. 
 
 lion. Judge Grinnell, of Illinois, etc, says : 
 
 When tliere is a large diversified population with divers interests, 
 I think, at least in capital cases the jurors ought to be kept together 
 during the progress of the trial. In other cases, it might not be necessary 
 to place so much restriction on the liberty of the jurors. 
 
 Hon. W. L. Learned, Judge of the Supreme Court of New York 
 State, says : 
 
 As to the liberty to be given to the Petit Jurors during a trial, that 
 must vary in different cases. I remember the trial of a murder case in 
 which, owing to the illness of a juror, the trial had to be suspended for a 
 week. I permitted the jury to go to their respective homes, each in the 
 charge of an officer. Generally in a murder case I would not allow them 
 to separate. 
 
 In case of public excitement where there is much feeling in regard 
 to the case, greater care may be necessary than in ordinary cases. 
 
 ,^ 
 
11 
 
 Trials have become much longer than they once were, and the 
 working hours of a day shorter. The old rule, as stated in 11 States Trials 
 5G1, would hardly be insisted on. 
 
 It was reluctantly noticed in Hardy's case 24 States Trials 414. And 
 Ihe necessity was acknowledged in Home Tooke's case and Sterne's case 
 2h States Trials 129,1295. 
 
 If the enquiry however is whether Petit Juries should be allowed in 
 criminal cases to separate and go free from the charge of an officer, 1 
 should say they ought not to be allowed. Possibly there might be excep- 
 tional cases where in the judgment of the Court such freedom would be 
 allowed with safety. 
 
 Hon. Jos. Martin, Attorney-Oeneral of Manitoba, says : 
 
 " It would be certainly a great advantage to the jury system to have 
 a system of selecting them by which men of good education and intel- 
 ligent ideas should be secured for this work. I am opposed to the present 
 hystem of locking a jury up. It seems to me that if you are to trust men 
 to act as Judges you should certainly be able to trust them to separate. 
 The system of locking them up till they coiae to a verdict seems to me 
 to be a very bad one. If this kind of treatment is necessary it would seem 
 ((» uio to ])(' a groat argument in favor of abolishing them." 
 
 Hon. Oliver Mowat, Prime ^Minister and Attorney-(Jon(;nil of the 
 Tiovince of Ontario, s:iys : 
 
 " The r\ilc here, iji cases of felony, is to i);nMnit the jury to 
 lio to their meals at an inn, and to sleep there, in charge of consta1)les. 1 
 think that this amount of liberty is very proper. In cases of misdemeanor 
 they are allowed to go home to their meals, l)eing cautioned not to speak 
 (lU the subject of the trial ; and I have not heard of any harm arising 
 from this practice." 
 
 Hon. J. A. S. Mitchell, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 
 Indiana, says : 
 
 " It should be in the discretion of the Court : jurors should have their 
 liberty during trials." 
 
 W. W. Thornton, State Law Librarian of Indiana, says : — 
 
 " In all instances, I would give the jury their liberty during the 
 progress of the trial, unless in capital cases causing much excitement in 
 the vicinity of the trial ; and then I would give the trial Judge a 
 discretion whether he would allow them their personal freedom during 
 
 I 
 
 k 
 
YH 
 
 
 the trial. Al'lfr subtuiNHioii ol'llu! c^a.s*! to Ihtiin, no fsoparatioii ishoiild Ik; 
 allowed." 
 
 Hon. 15. . I. M;iirru<l(fr, .Iii<l<^(! ol' Iho Supreme Court of Illiiutis, shvk: — 
 " Ah loiip- MS the iivorayo intcUii^cuce luul moral KtMi.st^ ait^ no hiuihnr 
 
 than flicy jini mI pni.s<M»l, tin- pr<^s<Mlt system of keeping the jurorH to 
 
 IhemselveH should In; rontinued in eriminal t;;ises," 
 
 lion. 15. W. liiicy. .Indite oi' the Supreme; Court ol" Vir;.(ini!i,, says: — 
 " I do not helieve, in «>ivin'^ the jurors their lilxu'ty durini^ the 
 
 proi^ress ol'ji. Irial. (luard thi'in well, lil't Ihem u]) luiyond the dany-ijr ol 
 
 impro|)i^r api)roaehes, vvlii 'h he^'uile the unwiiry. This is no hardshij) ; 
 
 Bome inconvenience, hul the loi'ly aim, i'ully justilies and (fx<;us(\s this." 
 
 lion. C 1']. 10sl;i!»rook, Attorn«'y-(ienerjil of VVis<ronsin, says: — 
 " It has not Keen the custom in this State io iillow Pel it .lurors, 
 during- the pro,u;'ress ol m .riminiil trial, Io Ix; at lihertv \vher(! the oU'encif 
 is a serious one ; and, vvhih' I am not v<My po.silive in opinion, 1 think it 
 is desirable not Io kec^p them locked up, hut separate(l IVom th • i)ul)li<'. 
 In prattticM; in Ihis Statt; the Slnsriiris not o})li!_nMl to keep them locked 
 lip. lie may take them out walkinj^, or out lor exen-ise. I do not want 
 to lock ii Juror up as if he was a lelon ; the ohjfMt is ol)tain«Ml hy keepinn- 
 him sej)arat(;d I'rom the [)ul)lic." 
 
 Hon. M. E. Clapp, Attorney-(ieneral of Minnesota, says: ~ 
 " Under our laws th(! Petit Jurors are allowed to separate in all 
 cases ol" misdemeanor and also oi" felony. Even in (•a[)ital cas(!s the jurors 
 can <»-o at large; hut at the discTotion oi' the court they may bo kept hulk- 
 ed up. As a tule the liberty <',njoyed by our jurors is not detrimental to 
 the eflective and hon«!st administration ol'justic-e. We find that under ihis 
 system the jurors do not betray the public interests. Their sense of res- 
 ponsibility scjems to be increased by this large measure of freedom. The 
 confidence which the (\)urts and the public place in them is repaid by 
 the faithful and fearless discharge of their duties, both towards the Stat<' 
 and the accused piirsons. In fact verdicts, rendered by jurors who are 
 d«'prived of their freedom and locked up, as if they were not to be trusted, 
 are as liable to criticism as verdicts returned by jurors who are allowed 
 to go free. I understand that the State of Minnesota enjoys a very envia- 
 ble reputation as far as the administration of criminal justice is con- 
 cerned ; and this is to be attributed to the manner in which our jurors 
 discharge their duty. I would suggest that in capital cases the jurors 
 should be heads of families, ai$ they feel more keenly their responsibility 
 
 
V!) 
 
 iiiid lire luilurally iiioif iiilorcHtcd in tho vviiHiin^ iiud ])r()t.t'r,li()ii ol'Hocioty. 
 As ii goiu'riil rule we liiivc nvndy any itriiii'isni ol, or (»l)ji'rli(>ii to vordidH 
 icndonHl hy our juroiN and tliiil I fonlrnd Ih llie bcHt <'ulo<j;iuin hoili of 
 tln' jurors aud ol" llu; sywttMU uiid«'r vvhirh Ihoy scrvii. " 
 
 Hon. (jiooryn N. IJaxtcr, llnilfd Stales Atlornc^y lor Minnc^Mota, HuyM ; 
 
 " 'rin^ni is a prarticiil dilliculty in rn<^;ir«l to thn amount of li})nrl,y 
 I hat hIiouUI hi! f^ivtrn to Hk* jury <lurin<^ I Ik; progress of a trial. My iiii- 
 ])r('ssi(»n in rc^'ard to this niatt(^r is that, in ordinary casus winin? no j^n^at 
 puhlif <!xcit(!nii'nt is raistid, IIim jurors shojihl Ix* jiUowt'd to i>'o at hir^(5 
 with (iiuiion Irom Ww. Court at'ninst ('onununi«"ilin<^ with outsidurs in 
 rficniUtM! lo th« caso uiuh^r ilnsir fouHichiration. 11' you tn-at jurors in u 
 {lil,'niliod and gtMillcnianly niunntir you will lind that thuHuhstantial <nti- 
 zciiH ol'tlu! coninuinity will not wtrive to whirk thf dutit^s of jury sifrvice. 
 liiiproix^r trcatnit'nt and si^voro rostriirtiou on tlnn'nMMloni ol" jurors ans 
 cjilcuhilt'd to driv<! Ihul class orcili/cus I'roin the jury hox. ('(»ns(M|ucnlly 
 1 am in lavor of i^ivini^' jurors a la,ri«t! hharc ol' Irccflom." 
 
 V. D. O'lJricn Vjm\. cx-llnili-d Slalcs Attorney, St-l*aul Minn., Hays : 
 
 '■ 1 think thoro shouhl \n\ no ohjtM-tion lo jurors Ixunj^ j^rantcd th«M'r 
 jihiu'ty durijiy trials I'or, if a juror is corrupl, h(! will he rt^achod anyway ; 
 w hilc you can yet j^ood irmn, if they ar<5 not <;ouiintHl and procluded I'rom 
 attundinj^ to their husiness and home matiers. I think (;onfiiioraont 
 ohscurcH the judfjfment of jurors and iniroduciss causes of irritation, 
 anxiety and even sickness, and consiMjiiently prevents them fr<mi j^iving 
 due and fair consideration to the case, l)(iin<^ anxious to ol)tain their 
 release. 
 
 So that all this system of rii^id treatment, to my mind, does not lead 
 to a fair administration of justice, but to the contrary." 
 
 Hon. 15. Andrews 'Jhief Justice of the Supreme C-ourt of C/onnecticut 
 
 says : 
 
 " The general usage here does not keep the jury together during a 
 trial. Whenever the Court takes a recess or adjourns for the day the jury 
 separate. In capital trials or incases where the punishment maybe, 
 imprisonment for life, it is within the power of the i)residing Judge to 
 order that the jury be kept together under the care of an officer. I would 
 require the jury to be kept together in all cases." 
 
 Hon. T. A. Minshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 
 aud Hon. Justice "Williams concurring, says : 
 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 <' ^' >% 
 
 4?. 
 
 S!. 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 12.8 
 
 |Z5 
 
 u& 1^ 12.2 
 
 I; 
 
 U Hii 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 11.25 il.4 
 
 m 
 
 0> 
 
 /i 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 /: 
 
 V 
 
 /^ 
 
'fl^ I 
 
W- 
 
 Vf,- 
 
 80 
 
 I am not in favor of giving the Petit Jurors their liberty in all cases. 
 The graA'ity ol the charge and the feeling that at times prevails in a 
 community may render it unwise to do so. This however should be left 
 to the sound discretion of the judge. 
 
 Hon. W. T. Spear, Judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio, says : 
 
 I am in favor of giving the jury their freedom, unless there are 
 special circumstances calling for the confiuement of the jury out of court- 
 house. In criminal cases, even before the case is finally given to them, 
 they are placed in charge of an officer and are carefully guarded from 
 approach when the trial judge deems it essential ; and, after they take the 
 case, are not, in any case of felony, permitted to separate until the verdict 
 is rendered or they are discharged. This rule does not, ordinarily apply, 
 to civil cases. In the main the rule works well and I would favor its 
 continuance. 
 
 lion. Chs. Drury, Minister of Agriculture of Ontario, says : 
 
 1 am in favor of giving the judge full discretion in the matter of 
 granting the jury their liberty during the trial. In my experience I have 
 never seen jiidges in this rrovince using their power in an arbitrary 
 Avay, restraining the personal liberty of the jurors. 
 
 I am opposed to assuming that jurors are corrupt and purchaseabL 
 I prefer to consider that they are persons of honorable principle and 
 that they are upright men. 
 
 Hon. M. Ijeasley, Chie''Tustice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, 
 says : 
 
 " As to the question of giving the petit jurors their liberty during 
 the progress of trials I may say, I would not give them their freedom in 
 capital cases, nor in cases which excite public feeling." 
 
 Hon. John P. Stockton, Attorney-Creneral of New Jersey, says : 
 
 " I am not in favor of giving the petit jurors their liberty during the 
 trial of capital cases ; the common law customs are wise in this respect." 
 
 The full Bench of the Supreme Court of Minnesota, concurring, says : 
 
 " AVe think that the question of giving the jurors their liberty during 
 the progress of trials should be left to the sound discretion of the judges 
 in the trial courts." 
 
 Hon. W. II. Flouruoy, Secretary of the Common wealth ot Virginia, 
 
 says 
 
 
 Ih 
 
81 
 
 A.S a general rule, we gi\e the petit jury their liberty during the 
 progress of trials, except in cases where capital punishment is the penalty 
 and where there are special reasons of public interest or of importance 
 that urge the judge to keep them separate from the public." 
 
 Mr. McLaren, Q. C. Toronto, says : 
 
 " As to allowing jurors to go at large during the progress of trials, I 
 think in ordinary cases jurors might be given their freedom, but in very 
 serious cases and in cases which create considerable public excitement, 
 it would be better for them to remain under the surveillance of the court 
 oificials, so as to avoid all temptations and all occasions to fall." 
 
 lion. A. J. Waterman, Attorney-General for Massachusetts : 
 I am in favor of giving the petit jurors their liberty during the pro- 
 £>;ress cf trials in all cases. 
 
 Art. IV — Of the unanimity and reduction of the jury, 
 
 lion. Edward M. Faxson, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 
 Pennsylvania, says : — 
 
 "I would not reduce the number of Petit Jurors. J see no object in 
 it unless it be to save expense. I am opposed to innovations of this kind 
 unless the defect of the present system is patent and the benefit from 
 the change reasonably certain. 
 
 The rule requiring unanimity in the verdicts of Petit Jurors has so 
 far worked reasonably well : that there are exceptions does not prove 
 anything, unless it can also be shown that a contrary rule would work 
 better. " 
 
 Hon. (r. Berkshire, Judge of the Supreme Court of Indiana, with 
 Hon. Silas D. Coffey and Hon. Walter Olds concurring, says : — 
 
 " I do not think that the number of the Petit Jury ought to be 
 rt>duced below twelve. In cases involving life or imprisonment in the 
 penitentiary, I think there should be unanimity. 
 
 In smaller offences, misdemeanors, I believe it woiild be a reform to 
 allow three fourths of the jury to make the verdict. " 
 
 Hon. J. W. Herron, U., S. Dist. Attorney for the State of Ohio, says : 
 
 " I think that in some cases the law requiring unanimity on the part 
 
 of the Petit Jury to find a verdict, does harm, and frustrates the ends of 
 
 justice. However, I would not favor a change enabling a simple majority 
 
 of the jury to bring in a verdict, but I would approve of juries being 
 
 6 
 
 '1^ 
 
82 
 
 
 allov^ed to determine the iuuocenoe or guilt of accused persons when 
 ten out of the twelve jurors were agreed upon a verdict. 
 
 As to the suggestion of reducing the number of the Peti*^ Jury I must 
 confess that I see no reason for a reduction and would oppose any change 
 in that direction." 
 
 Hon. D. K. Watsou, Attorney-General for Ohio, says : 
 
 " I would require unanimity on the part of the Petit Jury to bring 
 
 in a verdict of guilty or not guilty ; and I would retain the uural^er of Petit 
 
 Jurors at twelve." 
 
 His Excellency A. P. Hovey, Grovernor of Indiana, says : — 
 
 " In criminal cases, verdicts should only be iound when the jury is 
 
 unanimous. I do not believe in determining the guilt or the innocence 
 
 of accused persons by a majority vote of the jury." 
 
 "W. P. D. Brush, Esq., Reporter of the Court of Appeal in the State 
 of Kentucky, says : — 
 
 " Unanimity of the jury is a feature of the system, which it would 
 not be Vi'^ell to obliterate. Hardship may arise from this exaction of the 
 law ; but I fail to see that any positive amelioration could be effected by 
 allowing ajury to give its decision on a majority vote. However,! am bound 
 to admit that we have many who find fault with the present syscera as 
 they hold that the ends of justice would be l)etter attained by giving a 
 majority of the jury the j^ower to render a verdict, This opinion is 
 held and advocated principally by the members of the legal profession. 
 
 Chs. C. Bonney, ex-President of the Bar Association of Illinois, etc., 
 says : 
 
 " I am not of the opinion that the number of the Petit Jury should 
 be diminished, but 1 have a very decided conviction that two thirds or 
 three fourths of the jury should be permitted to return a verdict both in 
 criminal and civil cases. A majority of Judges in the highest Courts, 
 such as the Supreme Courts, may give judgment, and it seems to me the 
 same principle would authorize a majority verdict of ajury. 
 
 Hon Judge Grrinnell, ex-State Attorney of Illinois, says : 
 
 " In cases of misdemeanor, the law exacting unanimity on the part 
 of the jury might be modified to some extent, and I would not object to 
 haviug such cases settled by three fourths majority of the jury, but in 
 capital and felonious cases I do not think it would be wise or expedient 
 to change the lavv so as to substitute a majority for unanimity." 
 
 k^i 
 
88 
 
 Hou. W. L. Learned, Judg-e of the Supreme Court N. Y. says : 
 
 " I see no reason why the number ot" Petit Jurors should be reduced. 
 The people are accustomed to the present number. I suppose the only 
 reason which would be given lor a reduction would be, that it would be 
 easier to obtain a verdict, from, say six than from twelve. 
 
 But unless the prosecution can persuade twelve men ot the guilt of 
 the accused, the proof is not sulficient to justify nis conviction. 
 
 On the same ground I would not cihange the law requiring unani- 
 mity. It is not unreasonable, as 1 think, to s^y that if twelve carefully 
 selected men are not convinced of the guilt of the prisoner, it is best that 
 ho should escape, or at least that another trial should be had. 
 
 The principal question .should be, when changes are proposed, does 
 the present sy.stem work on the whole fairly well. The attention of 
 people is always attracted to the cases in which any system has worked 
 badly rather than to the more numerous cases where it has worked 
 well, ir one obstinate man prevents a couN-'iction when it is thought 
 that the accused was guilty, people complain, and forget how many 
 ci.'^cs of conviction have taken place. They would make it necessary 
 only to have a majority of elcA'^en to one. If they would try that, I should 
 be dissntinlied Ijecause in some cases tAvo were for acquittal : then they 
 ■would Uiix to change again and make out ten necessary. . 
 
 It has ])een well said that changes in laws never produce the results 
 that they were expected to produce and always produce other results 
 which were not expected .? 
 
 Isaac Campbell, Esq. M. P. P., Attorney of Winnipeg, says : — 
 
 " 1 am undoubtedly of the opinion that the number of the Petit 
 Jury ought to be reduced. I can see no special virtue in the number 12. 
 
 llecause twelve men have formed the jury in the past is not any 
 special reason why the jury of the future should be composed of the 
 same number. I am in favor of a reduction because we can get as much 
 intelligence and character in seven men, and these seven men can come 
 to just as sound and honest a conclusion as a larger number. With 
 twelve men in the box there is less attention to the evidence. And after all 
 that is what is required: after you have securedjurors with the necessary 
 intelligence and fairness you want them to listen attentively to the evi 
 dence. How often have you not seen a jury of which several of its members 
 paid not the slightest attention to the witnesses nor to their testimony ? 
 
84 
 
 Wit- 
 
 i;-t 
 
 si< 
 
 The careless or somnolescent jurors depended upon the conscientious and 
 wide-avs^ake ones to do th& listening. 
 
 Seven men can do the work just as well as twelve." 
 
 Hon. J. A. S. Mitchell, Chief Justice o( the Supreme Court of India- 
 na, says : 
 
 " The number of jurors ought not to be reduced, but it would be well 
 if less than the whole number of the jury wouild return a verdict." 
 
 W. W. Thornton, State Law Librarian of Indiana, says : 
 " I do not think it advisable to reduce the number of Petit Jurors in 
 a jury below twelve. I can see no reason for a reduction. 
 
 I think unanimity should not be required. The evil results arising 
 from a law requiring a unanimous verdict are far greater, in my opinion, 
 than one allowing a majority verdict. Verdicts in close cover are nearly 
 always the result of compromise; they are nothing more than majority 
 verdicts, it is contraiy to hiiman experience that twelve men should 
 agree upon a debatable question drawn in issue ; and why it should be 
 required in the trial of any case, taking my experience of the world, is 
 shrouded, to me, in half a mystery. Questions of great moment are decided 
 by the majority rule. Laws are enacted by a mnjority, alfcitiiig the wel- 
 fare of millions of peojile ; even the vote of one in several hundred repre- 
 sentations of the i^eople may determine what they shall be ; war, involving 
 the lives and property of millions may be so determined upon. In ISlt! 
 one vote in the Electoral College elected a President of the United States. 
 Why, then, should the life, liberty or property of one individual require I 
 a more certain result than that of millions. I do not believe that the| 
 chances of convicting an innocent person would be materially iucreased 
 However not less than nine should join in the verdict, a majority verdict I 
 would greatly avoid the possibility of packing a jury in the accused's 
 interest, or of allowing an obstinate juror to bring about a disagreement." | 
 
 lion. B. J. Magruder, Judge of the Supreme Court of Illinois, says; 
 
 " It is not advisable to reduce the number of the Petit Jury and the I 
 law should require iinanimity on the part of the Petit Jury in hndingits 
 verdict. 
 
 Hon. L. T. Michener, Attorney-General of Indiana, says : 
 
 '* As long as it is a principle of our law that it is better for ninety-j 
 nine guilty men to escape rather than that an innocent man should be 
 punished, unanimity should be required. I would be opposed to a| 
 reduction of the Petit Jury." 
 
 fp 
 
Si 
 
 Hon, L. L. Lewis, Chief Justice of Virginia, says: — 
 " I approve of the law which exacts that the jury should be unani- 
 mous to find a verdict, and would not deem it advisable to make any 
 chang-e regarding the number of which it is composed." 
 
 Hon. B. "W. Lacy, Judge of the Supreme Court of Virginia, says : — 
 I would say regarding the number of the Petit Jury, let the aposto- 
 lic number stand ; to change that, would diminish the reverence which 
 attaches to the system in the popular mind, and diminish its weight. 
 
 Unanimity is indispensable, it leads to due reflection, a mere ballot 
 would be sure to bring about undue haste." 
 
 Hon. Owen A. Galvin, U. S. Attorney for Massachusetts, says : — 
 " I see no reason for the reduction of the number of Petit Jurors. If 
 the system were to be established for the first time, it seems that ten 
 jurors would be as satisfactory as twelve. The requirement of unanimity 
 ou the part of the Petit Jury in order to find a verdict works well. 
 
 Hon. M. E. Clapp, Attorney-General of the State of Minnesota, says: 
 
 " I am opposed to effecting any change or reduction in the number 
 of the Petit Jurors. It might be a convenience to the public to reduce the 
 jury to six, but on the other hand it would not improve or strengthen 
 the administration of justice. I would consequently urge that the old 
 number twelve be maintained and that the requirement of unanimity be 
 upheld." 
 
 Hon. Chs. li. Andrews, Chief Justice of the Siipreme Court of Con- 
 necticut, says : 
 
 " In answering the questions you left with me I assume a condition of 
 public sentiment, of respect for law, of education, intelligence and moral 
 and religious feeling substantially such as exist in this State. 
 
 I think the jury system should be retained. I would not reduce the 
 number, and I would continue the requirement of unanimity in the 
 Court. I am quite sure that the minority of a jury by its firmness has 
 prevented a bad verdict fully as often as any minority, by its obstinacy 
 has prevented a good one. Those who criticise the requirement forget 
 the former and inadvert only on the latter. 
 
 James M. Flower, Esq., Attorney, Chicago, 111., says : 
 I think some reforms are needed. The verdict of a jury ought not to 
 depend on the opinion of one man. It is about time that the tail quit 
 wagging the dog. When a case is submitted to a number of judges the 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 I 
 
88 
 
 
 Sid; 
 
 opinion of a majority is sufficient. I dont see why some such principle 
 should not be applied to juries. In ciril cases I think a two-thirds vote 
 ouf^ht to be enough ; in criminal cases probably nine or ten ought to be 
 required to agree. It is easy enough to buy one man, but you can't buy 
 five or six. In Scotland, I think, the majority experiment has been tried, 
 and, I believe, has worked all right. 
 
 Allan C. Story, Esq., Attorney, Chicago, 111., says: 
 
 There is a good deal to be said on both sides of that question. When 
 I get beaten by a jury of one I don't like it, but still I don't know that I do 
 like to see less than a unanimous agreement. If a verdict could be secured 
 on the vote of eight or nine jurors it would make it expensive for jury- 
 buyers, though I dont know that ought to be considered against siich a 
 reform. 
 
 Hon. Judge Longenecker, State Attorney for Illinois, says : 
 The rule requiring the agreement of twelve to a verdict, is a relic of 
 state of things that no longer exists. It might have been very proper to 
 require twelve men to agree before a defendant should be convicted in 
 the days when prisoners were not represented hv counsel, could not 
 take the stand in their own behall", and when the evidence for the defense 
 was not given under oath. But we have long since outgrown all these 
 things. If a prisoner is not able to employ counsel, the State provides it 
 for him. He has compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. He can take 
 the stand in his own behalf. Under these circ\imstances the agreement of 
 nine men is certainly as good as that of twelve. If nine men say a 
 prisoner is not guilty and only three say he is, under our present system 
 there is a disagreement, and the defendant is put to the expense of a new 
 trial when he ought to be acquitted. On the other hand, if the nine say he 
 is not guilty he should be convicted. An innocent defendant cannot 
 suffer, for if a conviction follows insufficient evidence, the trial court can 
 grant a new trial. If the trial court does not, the Appellate or Supreme 
 Court where the majority rule prevails, can." 
 
 F. Walker, Esq., Attorney of Chicago, 111., says : — 
 
 " I have no hesitation in expressiug couMdence in the jury system 
 and the requirement of unanimity. 
 
 " It has proved itself the best system ever devised. Wherever tried 
 it has been successful. Any miscarriages of justice that may have occurred 
 through it have not been the fault of the system, but of the dishonor or 
 ■weakness of men. But these failures have been much fewer than people 
 
 
87 
 
 think. The rule requiring unanimity is an essential part of the system. 
 It would be dangerous to change it. The law is strong enough to convict 
 the guilty. The innocent need all the safeguards that can be thrown 
 about them. Any changes I would suggest would be in the line of 
 improving the quality of the men brough into the jury box by means of 
 a jury commission or something of that sort. 
 Hon. Judge Tuthill, Chicago, 111., says : — 
 
 " I believe in the jury system, though I think that an agreement of 
 three-fourths of the jurors in civil cases ought to be sufficient. In criminal 
 cases I wou.id not make any cfeangoa. The influoL'ce of the eleven men 
 on the twelfth is so great that he nearly always gives in ; if he does not, 
 it often appears that he ought not to have yielded. 1 think some change 
 ought to be made to make everybody serve. Some of our best men refuse 
 to vote in order to avoid jury service. The jurors being taken from the 
 poll lists, I think this class ought to be reached, as it contains the very 
 bei-:t timber for juries." 
 
 Hon. Judjre .Tamieson, Chicago, 111., says : — 
 
 " I cant see any more reason lor requiring a unanimous agreement 
 of a jury than for a unanimous agreement of seven judges. A majority 
 of the judges decide the case. If a majority of the judges is sufficient to 
 determine the law of a case, why should not a majority of the jury be 
 suffi<'ient to determine the facts ? It would save endless annoyance and 
 trouble in litigation. In nearly every case of the disagreement of a jury 
 it stands eleven to one. Sometimes it is ten to two, and rarely nine to three. 
 A majority vote decides everything else and for life of me I can't see 
 why we stick to the old sysiem that requires a unanimous agreement. " 
 
 Hon. Judge Altgeld, Chicago, 111. says : 
 
 " I am decidedly in fa. r oF a change. Under the present system 
 one man too much power. I dont think that a " crank " out to be allowed 
 to cau.se a disagreement or a mistrial. I think that a two thirds or a 
 three fourths vofe ought to be sufficient. It isn't likely that three or four 
 cranks would get on a jury. Then, while one man may be corrupted, it 
 would be difficult to corrupt three or four men. A majority vote decides 
 questions in every other relation of life of the greatest importance. I 
 dont see why a majority of a jury — at least a two-thirds or a three-fourths 
 majority — should not decide matters of litigation." 
 
 Hon. T. W. Taylor, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of 
 Manitoba, Winnipeg, says : 
 
88 
 
 " I do not see any material advantage to be gained by reducing the 
 number of jurors. There would be a slight saving of expense, but unless 
 it can be shown that some more important benefit would result, and none 
 at present occurs to me, 1 can see no reason lor making any change. 
 
 In civil cases, in this province, a verdict of nine jurors is suiFicieut, 
 and there are advantages in that. 
 
 In criminal cases it is different, and in my opinion the rule requiring 
 unanimity should be retained. ^ A criminal case is not like a personal 
 dispute between two private idividuals. It is a proceeding taken by the 
 Government, to enforce a law in the intere^ of the public ; the power of 
 the State on the one side ; that of one person, often poor and friendless, 
 on the other. Then the difficulties in the way, of having a verdict and 
 judgment 'n such a case, reviewed, and if erroneous, corrected, are very 
 great. The accused should be so dealt with, that he may have every 
 security for his rights and interests being protected It is rarely that a 
 jury in a criminal case disagree and in a practice if they are not unanimous 
 in finding the accused guilty, they acquit. This is as it should be. No 
 man should be convicted of a crime unless the evidence against him is 
 such as satisfies twelve intelligent men of his guilt. If any one of them, 
 has an honest doubt as to that, then the accused should have the benefit 
 of that doubt. Of course, much depends on the character and intelligence 
 of the jurors, and there may be cases, in which requiring unanimity 
 causes a failure of justice, but such cases are rare exceptions. It is so, at 
 all events in this Province, where, as a rule, we have exceedingly intel- 
 ligent jurors, who are not subject to outside influence, but act fairly and 
 impartially upon the vidence submitted to them." 
 
 Hon. AV. II. Flournoy, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
 says : — 
 
 " I would not have accused persons found guilty by a majority vote 
 of the petit jury. Unanimity should always be required. This require- 
 ment of the law compels the jury to give the case, submitted to them, 
 all due consideration and prevent them from coming to a hasty conclu- 
 sion one way or the other." 
 
 Hon. S. H. Cross, Secretary of State Providence, Rhode Island, 
 says : — 
 
 " Although in favor of the jury system, I think the law exacting 
 unanimity for the verdict works harm in a great many instances and 
 ought to be abolished. I would prefer to see jurors enabled to render 
 
 mm 
 
ftO 
 
 verdicts on a three-fourths vote or say nine out of twelvt^ ; as it is a pretty 
 (lillicult thing to get twelve men to see a point all alike. " 
 
 Hon. A. J. Waterman, Attorney-General for Massachusetts says : — 
 
 " I have had experience of trial by jury for thirty-live years and 
 while favorable to the retention of the jury system in the administration 
 of justice. I am of the opinion that the law exacting unanimity on the 
 part of the Petit Jury to find a verdict should be modified and that nine 
 of the jury should be given the power to render a verdict." 
 
 Hon. M. Beasley, Chief Justice of the Supremo Court of New-Jersey 
 says : — 
 
 " In civil cases I think it would probably do no harm to reduce 
 the number of the petit jury, but in criminal cases it would not be advi- 
 sable to reduce the number. 
 
 I am of the opinion that the requirement of unanimity on the part of 
 the petit jury to find a verdict should be maintained in criminal cases." 
 
 The full Bench of the Supreme Court of Minnesota, with the excep- 
 tion of Chief Justice Grilfillan who dissented, held : — 
 
 " That the requirement of unanimity on the part of the Petit Jury 
 to find a verdict should be maintained. 
 
 Chief Justice Gilfillan on the contrary held : That eight or nine of 
 the twelve jurors should be enabled to make the verdict. He said : " We 
 have suffered from the requirement of unanimity to find verdicts in this 
 State and I have known cases where justice w^as not served by one man 
 holding out against eleven. I like the Scotch system than the English. " 
 
 Hon. T. A. Minshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio> 
 and Hon. Justice M, J. Williams concurring, says : — 
 
 " In all cases where the charge in the indictment answers to a felo- 
 ny (and by this I mean a crime punished by imprisonment in the peni- 
 tentiary) a unanimous verdict should, I think, be required. In civil cases, 
 and crimes of a lower grade than felony, I do not see the necessity of a 
 iiuanimous verdict ; and am undecided to think that it would be in the 
 law of reform to authorize, say, three-fourths of the jury to return a ver- 
 dict in such cases. In the trial of criminal charges there should, I think, 
 be twelve jurors. 
 
 Hon. W. T. Spear, Judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio, says : — 
 
 In criminal cases I would require unanimity. In civil cases, I incline 
 
 to favor a trial of the proposition to accept a verdict from a less number, 
 
 say eight or nine. 
 
90 
 
 
 
 
 <f'. 
 
 I do not think it would be advisable to reduse the luunber below 
 twelve. 
 
 AKT. v.— The Grand Jury. 
 
 Hon. Edward M. Paxsoii, Chief Justice ol" the Supreme Court of 
 Pensylvania, says :■ — 
 
 " "With us the working of the Grand Jury system has always proved 
 beneficial to the public interests, and I think it would be a serious error 
 to interfere with it. I deem it essential to keep up the number to twenty 
 three. In practice here, there are rarely that nuuiber in attendance owing 
 to sickness, absence, or ex«nises. No matter how small may l)e the attend- 
 ance, a true bill, can only be found with the cf)nsent of twelve of the 
 Grand Jurors. I remember one occasion in the (juarter sessions of Phili- 
 delphia when but fifteen Grand Jurors were in attendance and I found 
 it necessary to fill their number to the legal standard to prevent a small 
 minority from controlling the action of that body." 
 
 Hon. Owen A. Galvin, U. S. Attorney for Ma.'sachusetts, says : 
 
 " In my opinion the CJrand Jury, as far as I can see, serves no useful 
 purpose in the administration of justice and its abolition would be no 
 detriment to the public interest or the interest of accused persons. People 
 who have had no experience in the Grand Jury room with the Jury, 
 belieA^e that the Grand Jury h a great protection to the accused person, 
 but my experience has not brought mo to this conclusion. 
 
 No committing magistrate would send a man before the Grand Jury 
 on less evidence than it takes to obtain the presentation of an indictment 
 by the average Grand Jury. Therefore I believe that the Grand Jury 
 serves no useful purpose. If you are to have a Grand Jury it seems to me 
 that the number might as well be three as twenty-three." 
 
 Hon. J. A\ Herron, U. S. Dist. Attorney for Ohio, says : — 
 
 " The Grand Jury is a useful body and I certainly would not dis- 
 pense with it. I do not believe in putting a man on trial on the simple 
 w^>rd of a prosecuting attorney especially when the crime charged against 
 tl accused is a serious one. The Grand Jury is necessary to protect the 
 individual against the whims of magistrates or the evil aesigns of offi- 
 ciale who might be ill-disposed or unscrupulous. 
 
 There would be no disadvantage to reduce the Grand Jury to a 
 smaller number than twenty-four." 
 
 Hon. D. K. Watson, Attorney-General for Ohio, says : — 
 
01 
 
 " All accused person is entitled to liave the charge against him exa- 
 mined and decided upon by an independent body before being subjected 
 to trial. The power of placing persons apon their trial is altogether too 
 great for any one proseciitor or official to wield. 
 
 On tlie whole, the Grand Jury is of service to the individual and to 
 the public and ought to bo maintained." 
 
 His Excellency A. P. Ilovey, Governor of Indiana, says : — 
 " I would preserve the Grand Jury as it is a useful institution in 
 many ways. There is, however, no iieed to keep its number up to twenty- 
 four, for I lind a smaller number would act as efficiently as a larger body. 
 Here in Indiana our Grand Jury is composed of only nine persons, and 
 no detriment to any interest, public or private, results from the reduction. 
 It takes six out of the nine Grand Jurors to find a " no bill " or a " true 
 bill " as the case may be." 
 
 Mr "VV. P. D. Brush, Rep. Court of Appeals, Kentucky, says : 
 " There is no necessity and no useful purpose served by having the 
 Grand Jury too numerous. And I consider twenty-four altogether too 
 large a number. It could and ought to be reduced to at least twelve, and 
 out of this number nine to agree before finding a bill." 
 
 Mr Ghs. C. Boiiney, ex President of the Bar Association of Illinois, 
 
 says : 
 
 " In my judgment the Grand Jury under the direction of a wise and 
 able judge is the most admirable machinery ever devised by the wit of 
 man for the detection and exposition of crime and for the protection of the 
 public morals. I do not think that the present number of the Grand Jury 
 should be reduced." 
 
 Hon. Judge Grinnell, ex State Attorney of Illinois, says : 
 " There is something to be said on both sides of the question 
 concerning the Grand Jury. Many, it is true, consider that it plays an 
 unimportant, if not useless role in the administration of justice, and 
 that there is very little to justify its continuance as a part of the Jury 
 system. A little consideration, however, will show that there is an iiisuf- 
 erable objection to its abolition and one that impressed itself indelibly 
 on my mind while I seryed the people of Illinois as State Attorney. 
 
 This, objection lies in the danger of having a prosecuting Attor- 
 ney influenced in his administration of the criminal law unjustly and 
 corruptly. If the Grand Jury is disposed of, then the prosecuting officer 
 of the ^"tnct is the only person in whom should be lodged the power of 
 
92 
 
 
 V'f 
 
 
 preparing and fyling informations. It is a tremendous power and if illeg- 
 ality, arbitrarily, corruptly or hastily exercised, would lead to great 
 wrongs. A system of favoritism might crop out and from ray personal 
 experience as a public prosecutor I should regret to have to be the exe<m- 
 tive officer with such stupendous power in my hands." 
 
 Hon. W. L. Learned, Judge of the Supreme Court of New York, 
 State, says : 
 
 " The Grand Jury is a protection to the citizen. He ought not to be 
 put upon his trial without good ground to believe that he is guilty. If 
 we have no drand Jury, then we would have to depend on the opinion 
 of some magistrate. 1 would rather trust the Graud Jury. 
 
 Very possibly the Grand Juries are much under the control of the 
 Prosecuting Attorney. Still they are at liberty to judge for themselves. 
 And I suppose that they often do so. 
 
 Further more, in regard to the Petit and the Grand Juries there is 
 another consideration. It is useful to the people at large, thus to be called 
 upon to take a part in the administration of justice. It educates them and 
 makes them feel that the Government is their own. They are adminis- 
 tering the laws ; they are deciding on the rights and wrongs of accused 
 persons. 
 
 I would therefore think it is not advisable to abolish the Grand 
 Jury. 
 
 There is no special virtue in the number twenty-three. Sixteen to 
 twenty-three is the rule of our Statute. The rule seems to work well 
 enough so far as I know " 
 
 Hon. Joseph Martin, Attorney General of the Province of Manotoba, 
 says : — 
 
 " With regard to the Grand Jury, I am of the opinion that the 
 administration of criminal justice would be much better without this insti- 
 tution. I am unable to see what advantage they are in any way whatever. 
 Occasionally persons charged with crime are let off by the Grand Jury 
 without any proper investigation of the matter. In these cases a distinct 
 injury is done. In cases where a true bill is found, the investigation 
 before the Grand Jury is an entire loss of time and money. It is not used 
 in any way before the Petit Jury and I cannot see what the advantage 
 is. So far as inspecting the gaol and other public institutions, in these 
 days of a free press it seems to me there is no danger whatever of any of 
 these institutions being improperly conducted for any lengthened period 
 
98 
 
 of time, in fact the inspection of the Grand Jury is practically no guaran- 
 tee against abuse ; the officials know when the jury is coming and if 
 there were anything to conceal, it would be most easy to do it. With 
 regard to the Petit Jury in criminal cases T am not strongly in faA'^or of 
 abolishing them ; in fact I think in many cases they are perhaps an advan- 
 tage. " 
 
 Mr. Fisher, M. P. V. Attorney of Winnipeg, says : — 
 
 ' The question of abolishing the Grand Jury would largely depend 
 upoD *he ability, and integrity of the magistrates. But as a rule there is 
 a large class of magistrates who are without the necessary capacity, whose 
 legal training is insufficient, whose judgment is not of the finest or sound- 
 est and whoso decisions would often lean towards severity or too much 
 towards leniency. 
 
 The result would be that too largo a number of cases woiild be sent 
 up for trial. The Grand Jury stands in the way of that." 
 
 Isaac Campbell Esq. M. P. P. Attorney of Winnipeg, says : — 
 
 " If it is necessary to have a tribunal between the magistrate and 
 the Petit Jury, the Grand Jury can continue to serve the purpose, but it 
 should be considerably reduced in number. Twenty-four men are alto- 
 gether too many to be called upon to perform the task assigned to the 
 Grand Jury. 
 
 There is every reason to reduce its number, fewer men would form a 
 better Board of Enquiry. While in favor of reducing it. I am not in favor 
 of abolishing it for if the public prosecutor solely had the responsibility 
 of sending oases for trial, there would be created at once an uneasiness 
 in the j)ublic mind regarding the administration of justii'o. The prose- 
 cutor or magistrate would be open to criticism and public confidence in 
 their judgment and action might be easily shaken and lost."' 
 
 lion. Gliver Mowat, Prime Minister and Attorney-CJeneral of Ontario, 
 says : — 
 
 " I should not be prepared Lj advise the abolition of the Grand Jury 
 in the absence of some satisfactory substitute which it would not be 
 easy to devise." 
 
 Hon. J. A. S. Mitchell, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indiana 
 says : 
 
 " The Grand Jury system should not be abolished bat there is no 
 reason why the number should not be reduced. Grand Jurors ought to be 
 
94 
 
 Fi-*: 
 
 m'^i. 
 
 
 
 
 p. 
 
 
 m 
 
 householders and freeholders with a residence of at least one year in the 
 country." 
 
 Mr, W. W. Thornton, State Law Librarian of Indiana, says : 
 " I think the Grand Jury system should be retained, but reduced to 
 six, that number has worked very satisfactorily in my own State. The 
 abolition of the Grand Jury would be detrimental to the administration 
 of justice ; for many prosecutions, without it, will never be brought, 
 even though they should be, owing to the difficulty of finding some one 
 willing to set on foot a prosecution. At the same time it is a check uj^on 
 those who seek to hold a criminal prosecution in furtherance of their own 
 malicious scheme. Secret crime, also, can be ferreted out by the use of a 
 Clraud Jury, owing to its requirements of secrecy, that never would be 
 exposed, if it were not for their action. I think, however, the prosecu- 
 ting officer should have the right to proceed by information, if he desire 
 where the Grand Jxiry hnve not investigated the alleged crime, leaving 
 it optional with him to refer the matter to the Grand Jury." 
 
 Hon. B. J. Magruder, Judge of the Supreme Court of Illinois, says : 
 " The Grand .lury serves a useful purpose in the administration of 
 justice ; its abolition would be injurious to the public interest and to the 
 interests of accused. periioiis. Its number should be kept up to twenty- 
 four." 
 
 Hon. L. T. Michener, Attorney-General of Indiana, says : 
 " Proseinition for crime is a severe ordeal and an impartial tribunal 
 should stand between the citi/en and his arrangement on a criminal 
 charge. In this State the law permitting prosecutions for minor otiences 
 upon affidavit and information results in many abuses. I should at least 
 retiiin the Gnmd Jury for the purpose of formulating charges, upon 
 which prisoners are to be put on trial I'or felony. 
 
 Our Grand Jury is composed of six in this State. It seems to work as 
 well as the common law number." 
 
 Hon. L. L. Lewis, Chief Justice of Virginia, says: 
 " I consider that the Grand Jury serves a useful purpose in the 
 administration of justice and that harm would result from its abolition ; 
 but at the same time I see no r-ecessity of liaving such a large number to 
 constitute it." 
 
 Hon. V). AV. Lacy, Judge of the Supreme Court of Virginia, says : — 
 
 " The Grand Jury is a wholesome institution and to abolish it would 
 
 be detrimental to the loublic service. I am of the opinion that it should 
 
hf". composed of tweuty-lbiirmeu. In this State (Virginia) the experiment 
 has been tried of special Grand Juries of not more than ten and not less 
 than fire, for economy ; and it has bee dispensed with in the Circuit 
 Courts (the Superior Courts) and left only in the County Courts (the infe- 
 rior Courts) a blunder growing out of ou^ poverty." 
 
 Hon. C. 11. Estabrook, Attorney-General of the State of Wisconsin, 
 says : — 
 
 " In this State we have not abolished the Grand Jury, but we have 
 two systems : a person may be put on trial by information, or by indict- 
 ment. Since the adoption of the constitutional amendment in 18*71, the 
 Grand Jury has seldom been called ; and then only in cases of conslde- 
 riil)le pu])lic excitement or public interest, such as the Milwaukee riots 
 of May, 1886. For the ordinary criminal, the examination before a justice 
 of the peace serves the purpose, and it relieves the citizens from service 
 on the (rrand Jury when no good purpo,s could be accomplished in cal- 
 ling them in. It rests in the discretion of the Circuit Judge to call a 
 Grand Jury. I think it is generally conceded in this State that our sys- 
 tem works well ; and a Grand Jury is rarely called." 
 
 If they are going to maintain a Grand Jury as a regular part of the 
 Court, then the number might be reduced. 
 
 The entire Bench of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, with the excej)- 
 tion of Hon. Judge Cassidy who dissented, held the opinion that as a 
 general rule the Grand Jury did not serve a useful purpose in the admi- 
 nistration of justice, but admitted that in some special cases it was of 
 service. They iurther held that the ])ower of calling the Grand Jury 
 sliould be vested in the Judge who when he deemed it advisable or 
 lu'cessary should call that body together. The number of twenty-four 
 (Jrand Jurors was immaterial 
 
 Hon. Judge Cassidy on the (MUitrary was of opinion that the services 
 ol' the CJrand Jury should not be dispensed with. He held that Prosecu- 
 ting Attorneys were liable to become timid in face of strong opposition 
 and hence let crime go unpunished. For this and other reasons he would 
 urge the retention of t lie (Jrand Jury in the administration of justice " 
 
 Hon. John G. llerkshire. Judge of the Supreme Court of Indiana, 
 ^vith Hon, Silas 1). Collcy and 11 Walter Olds concurring, says : — 
 
 " In my judument the Grani^ .mry serves a useful purpose in the 
 administration of justice. I do not very well see how it could be dispensed 
 ^vith. But lor the (rrand Jury, many criminals, guilty of grave crimes, 
 would go unpresented. 
 
 
96 
 
 
 
 J/ 
 
 
 It is very seldom I think that one, who ought not to be indicted, is 
 presented by the Grand Jury. 
 
 But if you abolish the Grand Jury and depend on presentment by 
 afiidaA'it and information many a desperate criminal will go uuprose- 
 cuted because of the reluctance of the good citizens to institute a prosecu- 
 tion either because of fear or bodily harm or the destruction of his pro- 
 perty. 
 
 In Indiana we have but six Chand Jurors. 1 think the number is 
 too few. Twelve in my judgment is a proper number. We formerly had 
 twenty-four, then twelve and now six. I think twelve proved the most 
 satisfactory." 
 
 Hon. M. E. Clapp, Attorney-General of Minnesota, says : — 
 " In our State the Grand Jury is of great service in enforcing the 
 liquor laws. It investigates violations against the law and aids mater- 
 ially in bringing the oifenders to justice. Our Grand Jury is composed 
 of only fifteen members, instead of twenty-four. I find that this number 
 do their work satisfactorily it takes twelve out of the fifteen to find a 
 true bill." 
 
 C. D. O'Brien Esq., ex-United States Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota, 
 says : — 
 
 " I consider the Gi*aud Jiiry a very important element in the proce- 
 dure of trial of criminal cases. It stands between the prosecutor and tho 
 unnecessary trials. The Grand Jury moreover aids in fixing the degree 
 of the offence charged, not leaving to the prosecutor the right to determine 
 for his own convenience the degree of the offence. It also familiarizes a 
 large poi lion of the community with the law and state of affairs of the 
 country and enables them to project the necessary remedies. If you leave 
 the law and its administration solely to judges and lawyers the people 
 will have no knowledge of it and it would become an abstruse science, 
 instead of a rule of conduct which it is intended to be. 
 
 lion. M. Beusley, Chief Justice of the Supremo Court of New-Jersey, 
 says : — 
 
 " The Grand Jury is most useful in the administration of justice and 
 to abolish it would be detrimental to the public interest and to the inte- 
 rests of accused persons. The number of the Grand Jury I think might 
 be reduced without causing any injury." 
 
 Hon. John P. Stockton, Attorney-General of New-Jersey, says-: — 
 
 
91 
 
 " I think that the abolition of the Grand Jury would be detrimental 
 to the public interests and to the interests oi" accused persons ; it is not 
 nece,ssary to keep the number of the Grand Jury up to twenty-four but it 
 has the advantage of custom and should not be altered without reason." 
 
 The full Bench of the Supreme Court of Minnesota, are unanimous 
 in the opinion that the Grand Jury serves a useful purpose in the admi- 
 nistration of justice and that to abolish it would be injniious both .othr 
 public interest and to the interests of accused persons. 
 
 The Bench however were divided in opinion as to the iiw ber which 
 ought to constitute the Grand Jury, some wanting it maintained as it is 
 at present ; and others urging that it be reduced to seven or nine of whom 
 a majority might find an indictment. 
 
 Chief Justice Gilfillan added that it is a mistake to make qualifica- 
 tions different for Grand and Petit Jurors, as the latter have greater res- 
 ponsibility in the decisions of cases. " I would like ", he said '' property 
 qualification for both, && we would be more likely to get a better class of 
 
 men. 
 
 Hon. T. W. Taylor, Chief Justice of the Court of Qu'een's Beui^h of 
 Manitoba, says : — 
 
 " Certainly there is not the same importance to be attached to a Grand 
 Jury now, that there was in former times ; still any change should be 
 made cautiously, and with some provision for the discharge of many 
 important duties of grand jurors, beyond the finding of indictments. 
 
 In this Province the number of grand jurors is eighteen I am not 
 aware of any inconvejiience on account of the change. " 
 
 Hon. Chs. B AndrewN, Chief Justice of the ^'upreme Court of Con- 
 necticut, says : — 
 
 " In this Stato, presentments by a CJrand Jury are necessary, only in 
 those cases, where the punishment is or may bo, death or imprisonment 
 for life in the State Prison. In all other cases, trials are had upon the 
 information by the State Attorney. I think this practice is working well 
 and should be retained. We make the Grand Jury to consist of not less 
 than eighteen and not more than twenty-three, and require twelve to 
 agree in order to find a true bill. ' 
 
 Hon. T. A. Minshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 
 and Hon. Justice Williams concurring, says : 
 
 I would not favor the abolition of the Grand Jury in cases of felony. 
 
 1 
 
98 
 
 if* 
 
 W 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 That is, I thiuk, no one should be placed on trial for a felony without 
 the presentment of a Grand Jury. 
 
 It serves in this regard as an important protection to the oitizen 
 against prosecution and malice. 
 
 In crimes of a less grade it may bo dispensed with without my detri- 
 ment to public or private intereste. 
 
 In our State the Grand Jury is composed of fifteen electors, twelve 
 of whom may present an indictment. I do not see the necessity for 
 twenty-three. 
 
 Mr. McLaren, Q. C , Toronto, says : 
 
 " I do not think that the Grand Jury serve any useful purpose, and 
 I believe that they can be easily dispensed with. It is ridiculous to have 
 decisions of town magistrates and justices reviewed by a Grand Jury. [ 
 believe they ought to be mau^ to serve as Petit Jurors when their useful- 
 ness would bo of greater advantage and benefit to the administration of 
 justice.' 
 
 Hon. Lieut. Col. Gib-ou, Provincial Secretary of Outario, says : — 
 
 " As regards trial by jury I feel very confident in saying that we are 
 far from being ready for the change. 
 
 There is a good deal of veneration for the Grand Jury as an old time 
 honored institution. It can be said of course, that, in the general run of 
 cases, the crown progecutor could discharge the functions performed by a 
 Grand Jury ; but it must be admitted that there is always a feeling of 
 confidence on the part of the people, in the investigation of a Grand Jury, 
 which would not be felt in the discharge of the same duty by any on^ 
 man. Besides, there is the right of the Grand Jury to take notice of 
 matters outside the ordinary administration of justice, in the shape of 
 evils and matters of public concern, requiring legislative or administra- 
 tive remedy, and also the inspection of public institutions. While, it is 
 seldom that anything practivable results from the deliveran<*es of Grand 
 Jurors concerning these matters, there is, at the same time, a certain 
 amount of safety in the fact that such matters may be taken cognizance 
 of by Grand Jurors. On the whole I should favor the retention of the 
 Grand Jury." 
 
 Hon. Chs Drury, Minister of Agriculture of Ontario, says: — 
 
 " We want better men on the Petit Jury than on the Grand Jury, 
 because the former have the deterinina! ion of the cases on their merits- 
 I inay add thdt'I atn not very* fevor^ble 6n the cotftiniiaiiee of the Grand 
 
99 
 
 time 
 an of 
 
 ibya 
 ng of 
 Ijury, 
 one 
 lice of 
 i,pe of 
 
 istra- 
 it is 
 
 rxand 
 jertain 
 
 zance 
 
 of the 
 
 Jury, as with our system of preliminary investigation by magistrates 
 which IS necessary before any one < an be committed for trial, there is, 
 comparatively little necessity to go through the same performance before 
 a Crrand Juiy. I would suggest, in the event of the abolition of the 
 Grand Jury, that preliminary investigations should be held before more 
 than one justice of the peace in rural districts." 
 
 Hon. A. J. Waterman, Attovney-G-eneral for Massachusetts, says : — 
 
 The Crrand Jury in my opinion should be maintained but it is not 
 necessary to keep the number of that body up to twenty-four. Five or 
 seven grand jurors would do as well and perhaps better. 
 
 Hon. "W". T. Spear, Judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio, says : — 
 
 " The Grand Jury, under our system, serves a useful purpose both 
 to the publi*'. and to accused persons. I would not, upon any account, 
 abolish it. I have had considerable opportunity for special observation, 
 having served four years as prosecuting officer for the State, and a much 
 longer time upon the Bench of the Common Pleas Court, of which Court 
 the Grand Jury is an adjunct. 
 
 I do not think it is necessary to have the panel consist of twenty- 
 three. Our law requires fifteen, twelve of whon agreeing can find an 
 indictment, and it works well." 
 
 II 
 

 cia:A.i=a?BK; v. 
 
 SUMMARY OF STATUTES GOVERNING THE JURY SYSTEM. 
 
 I^>^^ 
 
 It 
 
 rfr 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 Art. I. — The Jury law of MAsyAcuusETTS. 
 
 Qualifications and Exemptions. 
 
 Sect. 1. All persons who are qualified to vote in the choice of repre- 
 sentatives in the general court shall be liable to be drawn and to serve as 
 jurors, except as is hereinafter provided. 
 
 Sect. 3. No person shall be liable to be drawn and serve as a. juror 
 in any court oftener than once in three years, except as provided in the 
 following section ; but he shall not be so exempt, unless he actually 
 attends and serves as a juror in jmrsuance of the draft. 
 
 Jury List and Box. 
 
 Sect, 6. The selectmen of each town shall once in every yearproparo 
 a list of such inhabitants of the town not absolutely exempt, as they think 
 well qiialilied to serve us jurors, being per.ions of good moral character, 
 of sound judgment, and free from all legal exceptions ; whii-h list shall 
 include not less than one for every one hundred inhabitants of the town 
 and not more than one for every sixty inhabitants, computing by the then 
 last census, except that in the coiinty of Dukes County it may include 
 one for every thirty inhabitants. 
 
 Sect. Y. The list when so prepared shall be posted up by the select- 
 men in public places in the town, ten days at least before it is submitted 
 for revision and aci'eptance, and shall then be laid before the town ; and 
 the town may alter it by adding the names of any persons liable to serve, 
 o* striking any names tlierefrom. 
 
 Sect. 8. The selectmen shall cause the names borne on the list to be 
 written each on a separate paper or ballot, and shall roll up or fold the 
 ballots so as to resemble each other as much as possible, and so that the 
 name written thereon shall not be visible on the outside ; and they shall 
 place the ballots in a box to be kept by the town clerk for that purpose. 
 
 Sect, 9. If a person whose name is so placed in the jtiry box is con- 
 
 Ik 
 
101 
 
 victed of a 8i'andal<»us crime, or is (guilty of gross iraraorality, his name 
 8ball be withdrawn therefrom by the neleotmen, and he Hhall not be 
 returned to serve as a Juror. 
 
 VENiUEb voii Jurors. 
 
 Sect. 10. The clerks of the Supreme judicial court and superior 
 court, in due season before each term, and at such other times as the 
 respective courts may order, shall issue writs of venire facias for jurors, 
 aud shall thereiu require the attendance oi the jurors on such day of the 
 term as the court may order. 
 
 Sect. 11. The clerks in issuing the venires shall require from each 
 town and city a number of jurors as nearly as may be in proportion to 
 their respective number of inhabitants, so astoe<jualize, as far as possible, 
 the duty of serving as jurors. 
 
 Sect. 12. The venires .shall be delivered to the sheriti' of the county, 
 and by him transmitted to a constable in each of the towns and cities to 
 which they are respectively issued, and they shall be served by the cons- 
 table, without delay, on the selectmen and town and clerk. 
 
 Sect. 13. Nothing contained in the proceeding section shall prevent 
 any court from issuing venires for additional jut-ors in term time whenever 
 it is necessary for the convenient despatch of its business ; in which case 
 the venires shall l)e served and returned, and the jurors required to 
 attend on such days, as the court shall direct. 
 
 Drawing and Summoning Jurors. 
 
 Sect. 1*7. All jurors, whether required to serve on a grander traverse 
 jury, or by force of the laws relating to highways or mills, or on any 
 other occasion, (except inquests and proceedings relating to the commit- 
 ment of insane persons,) shall be selected by drawing ballots from the 
 jury box, and the persons whose names are borne on the ballots so drawn 
 shall be returned to serve as jurors. 
 
 Sect. 18. When jurors are to be drav. u, the town clerk and selectmen 
 shall attend at the clerk's office or ai some other public place appointed 
 for the purpose, and, if the clerk is absent, the selectmen may proceed 
 without him. The ballots in the jury box shall be shaken and mixed 
 together, and one of the selectmen without seeing the names written 
 thereon, shall openly draw therefrom a number of ballots equal to the 
 number of jurors required. If a person so drawn is exempt by law, or is 
 unable by reason of sickness or absence from home to attend as a juror, 
 
102 
 
 11 ♦ 
 
 i* ' 
 
 
 it 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 or 'if 'he has served as a juror in a court within three years then next 
 preceding, his name shall be returned into the box, and another drawn 
 in his stead. 
 
 Sect. 19. When a person is drawn and returned to serve as a juror 
 in a court, the selectmen shall indorse on the ballot the date of the draft, 
 and return it into the box ; and whenaver there is a revision and renewal 
 of the ballots in the box, the selectmen shall transfer to the new ballots 
 the date ol' all the drafts made within three years then next preceding. 
 
 Sect. 20. A town may, at a legal meeting, order that all drafts for 
 jurors therein shall be made in open town-meeting, in which case the 
 drai't shall be made by the selectmen in the manner prescribed in the 
 two preceding section, except that it shall be done in a town-meeting. 
 In such town when a venire is served upon, the selectmen they cause a 
 town-meeting to be notified and warned for that purpose in the manner 
 ordered by the town or otherwise prescribed by law. 
 
 Sect. 21. The meeting for drawing jurors, whether the dralt is made 
 in town-meeting or before the selectmen and town clerk only, shall be 
 held not loss than seven nor more than twenty-one days before the day 
 when the jurors are required to attend. 
 
 Sect. 22. The oonslable shall, fciir days !;t least before the time when 
 the jurors are required to attend, summon each person who is drawn, by 
 reading to liim the venire with the indorseniont thereon of his having 
 been drawn, or by leaving at his place of abode a written notification 
 of his having been drawn and of the time and place of the sitting of the 
 court at which he is to attend, and shall make a return of the venire 
 with his doings thereon to the clerk, beiore tlie opening of the court 
 from which it was issued. 
 
 SrEClAL rROVISIONS FOK ('iTIES. 
 
 Sect. 23. The list of jurors in cities, except Boston, shall be prepared 
 and posted therein by the mayor and aldermen in like manner as required 
 of selectmen, and when posted for ten days shall be submitted to the 
 common council, which shall have like power as toAvns to revise and 
 accept the same. 
 
 Sect. 24. The list in Boston shall be i)repared and posted by the 
 board of registrars of voters, in January or February of each year, in like 
 manner as is required of selectmen, and when so posted for ten days 
 shall be submitted to the board of aldermen, who shall revise and accept 
 it, and shall thereafter proceed in like manner as is required of selectmen 
 
108 
 
 by sei'tion eight, and bhall place Iho ballots in a box to be kept by the 
 lity clerk for the purpose. 
 
 Sect. 26. The mayor and aldermen and clerks oi' each city shall 
 Kcverally have and exercise all the powers and duties with regard to 
 drawing and all other matters relating to jurors therein, except as 
 ])rovided in the preceding section, which are in this cha])ter required to 
 be perl'ormed by the selectmen and town clerks in their respective towns 
 and all venires for Jurors to be returned I'rom cities shall be served on the 
 mayor and aldermen. 
 
 iMI'ANRIiLINO ANDOTHKU PllOVlSIOM.^ RESPECTINQ JURIEiS 
 
 Sect 31. On the diy when the jurors are summtmed to attend at a 
 court in StifTolk county for the trial of either civil or (;riminal cases, 
 except capital cnsos. the clerk shall cause the name, place of abode, and 
 oi'cui>ation of each pcr.-~on summoned as a juror to be written on separate 
 cards or ])apers, all of which shall be as nearly as may be of the same 
 size, and shall '.axise them to be placed in a box provided for that pur- 
 l)ose. When a case is brought on to be tried, the clerk in open court, 
 shall shake the papers thoroughly together, and shall thcTi draw out 
 twelve papers one alter the other. If any of the per.«ons whose names 
 !ire so drawn do not appear, or are excused or set aside, the clerk shall 
 draw out other papers until the names of twelve are drawn who ap})ear 
 and are not excused or set aside. The said twelve men shall be duly 
 sworn and impanelld, and shall ])e the jury to try the issue, and one of 
 them shall be appointed foreman by the court. The names of the jurors 
 so sworn shall be kept by themselves, and when the verdict of the jury 
 has been recorded or when the jury has been discharged by consent of 
 parties or by leave of the court, shall be returned to the l)ox : and this 
 l)rocess shall be rep;^ated in each case when an issue is brought on to be 
 tried by jury ; but if an issue is so brought on before the A'erdi t in any 
 other case has been recorded or the jury in such case has been di charged, 
 the court may order the jury for the trial of such issue to be impanelled, 
 l)y the drawing, in the manner aforesaid, of papers from those then 
 remaining is the box 
 
 Sect. 32. When a jury is to be impanelled for the trial ofacapitjtl 
 case, the clerk of the court shall cause the name rf each juror summoned 
 therein to be written on a separate pajjer, and each paper to be folded 
 uniformly and in such a manner that the name written thereon shall not 
 be visible, and shall cause such papers to be placed in a box provided for 
 
h- 
 
 101 
 
 n* 
 
 \\t-- 
 
 
 
 
 it". 
 
 that purpose. He shall theu i)ro(!eed in <»poii rourt to draw th»^ papers 
 Irom waid box, one by one, and the first twelve persons whose names are 
 upon the papers so drawn, who are not eximsed or otherwise set aside, 
 shall be sworn as the jury for the trial ol' the rase. 
 
 Sect. 33. When by reason of challenge or otherwise a sufficient num- 
 ber of jurors duly drawn and summoned cannot be obtained for the trial 
 of a cause, civil or criminal, the court shall cause jurors to be r *^yd 
 from the bystanders, or from the county at large, to (complete th<» ^ts !, 
 if there are on the jury not less than neven of the jurors who were orig.- 
 nally drawn and summoned as beiore provided. 
 
 Sect. 84. The jurors so returned from the bystanders shall be returned 
 by the sherilf or his deputy, or by a disinterested per.son ai)i)ointed there- 
 for by the «tourt, and shall be such as are are (pialifipd and liable to l)e 
 drawn as jurors a<^cordinu- to the provisions of law. 
 
 TENAIiTlKS. 
 
 Sect. 44. If a person duly drawn and summoned to attend us a juror 
 in a co.irt, neglects to attend without sufficient excuse, he shall pay a 
 line ut * exceeding forty dollars, which shall be imposed by the <'Ourt to 
 which ihe juror was summoned, and shall be paid into the c^ouuty trea- 
 sury. 
 
 Sect. 45. When, by neglect of any of the duties required in this 
 chapter to be performed by any of the offi(;ers or persons herein mentioned 
 the jurors to be returned from a place are not duly drawn and summoned 
 to attend the court, every person guilty of such neglect shall pay a fine 
 not exceeding twenty dollars, to be imposed by the same (^ourt to the use 
 of the county i;i which the offinice is committed. 
 
 Sect. 47. If a city or town c ji*k, selectman, mayor, or alderman is 
 guilty of fraud in the drawing of jurors, either by practising on the jury 
 box previously to a draft, or in drawing a juror, or in returning into the 
 box the name of a juror which has been lawfully drawn out or drawing 
 substituting another in his stead, or in any other wi.y, he shall he 
 punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars. 
 
 The CrRAND JURV. 
 
 Sect. 1. The clerk of the superior court for each county, except the 
 county of Suffolk, not less than seven nor more than thirty days before 
 the commencement of the first term of the court in ea«.'h year, shall issue 
 writs venire facias for twenty three grand jurors to be returned to 
 
 
105 
 
 that i^ourt, who shall bii held to sorve at eai^h term then^ol" throughout 
 the year, and until anoth«^r <j^rand Jury Ih impanelled in their stead ; 
 except that, in the eouiaies where terms of th«» eourl are established lor 
 the transaction of eriminnl business, i^rand jurors shall be required to 
 attend only at svi''h terms. 
 
 i^ect. 2. The clerk of the superior court for criminal business in the 
 ♦•ounty of Sutfolk, not less than seven nor mori' than fourteeti days before 
 <>ach term, commencing on the lirst Mondays of January and July, shall 
 issue writs ni' venire /arias for twenty three strand jurors to serve in said 
 court, twenty-two of whom shall be drawn and returned I'rom the «uty 
 of Hoston, iuid one from ('helsea. lleven', or Winthrop, who shall be held 
 to serve fo" »»a»^h term thereof for ; 'x months, and until another strand 
 jury is imjianelled i;i their ttead. 
 
 Sect. ;{ (Irand jurors shall be drawn, summoned, and returned in 
 the same nuiniier as jurors tor trials ; and when drawn at the same time 
 with juror^s for trials, the persons whose names are iirst drawn, to the 
 number recjuired, shall bw returned as g'rund jurors, and those afterwards 
 drawn shall be jurors for trials. 
 
 kSeot. 4. In case of deficiency of grand jurors in any court, writs of 
 venire facias may be issued to the constables of such cities or 'towns as 
 the court may direct, to return forthwith su h fiirtlier number of !»raud 
 jurors as may be required. 
 
 Sect. 7. After the g;rand jurors have been impanelled and recjeived 
 their charffe from the court, they shall retire with the officer appointed 
 to attend them, and, before imiceeding- to dischari^e their duties, shall 
 elect by ballot one of +heir number to be foreman, and give notice thereof 
 to the court, and the clerk shall record the same. 
 
 Sect. 8. The foreman elected at the first term shall be foreman for the 
 Avhole period they are required to serve, but in his absence another fore- 
 man shall be elected in the samt .nanner, who shall perform the duties 
 during such absence, and, incase of the death of the foreman, for the 
 residue of their term of service. 
 
 Sect. 9. The foreman of the grind jury or the prosecuting officer 
 before them may administer oaths and affirmations, in the manner prescrib- 
 ed by law, to witnesses who appear to testify b3fore the jury, and the 
 foreman shall under his hand return to the court a list of all witnesses 
 sworn before the grand jury during the term, which shill be filed ot 
 record by the clerk. 
 
J. jC 
 
 
 F^ -4 
 
 "5, 
 
 Sect. 10. The grand jury may appoint ono ol" their miinbi r to be 
 clerk, to preserved minutes ol'the proceedings before them, which minu- 
 tes, when the jury so direct, shall be delivered to the attorney-general 
 or district attorney. 
 
 Sect. 11. When the grand jury are dii^missed before the court is 
 adjourned without day, they may be summoned to attend again in the 
 same term, at such time as the court directs, lor the despatch of any 
 business that may come before them. 
 
 Sect. 31. A prisoner indicted for a crime punishable with death or 
 ilnprisonment for life in the state prison s^hall, on demand upon the clerk 
 by himself or his counsel, have a list of the jurors returned delivered to 
 him, and shall also have process to summon such witnesses as are necess- 
 ary to hi.s defence, at the expense of the commonwealth. 
 
 Sect. 32. Every person indicted for an ollence for which he may be 
 imprisoned in the state prison, if he is uuder re<ognizance or in custody 
 to answer Ibr such offenije, shall be entitled to a copy of the indictment 
 and all indorsements thereon, without paying fees therefor. 
 
 Art. it. — The Jury Law of KEi^thcky. 
 
 1. No person shall be qiialified to serve as a grand jaryman unless 
 he be a white citizen and a housekeeper of the county in which he may 
 be called to serve, and over the age of twenty-one years. No civil officer 
 surveyor of a highway, owner of a grist-mill, tavern-keeper, vendor of 
 ardent spirits by license, or who for reward has, within the preceding six 
 months, stood a horse, jack or ])ull, shall be competent to serve as agrand 
 juror. 
 
 That no person shall be a competent juror in any court in his com- 
 munity while under indictment in this city or elsewhere or who has been 
 convicted of a felony and not pardoned. 
 
 2. There shall be summoned by the shorifFofthe county sixteen 
 grand jurymen,. to attend on the first day of the term of each circuit court 
 at which criminal or penal prosecutions may be tried. 
 
 Neither the verdict of a petit jury nor an iudii-tment of a grand 
 jury shall bet set aside for the reasons that persons incapacitated from 
 serving thereon by this act have served upon such jury. 
 
 3. Every person summoned to attend as a grand juryman, if he fail 
 to attend, without a reasonable cause, shall be fined not exceeding ten 
 dollars. 
 
10*7 
 
 4. If the court shall deem it necessary a grand jury composed of 
 bystanders may be empanneled at any term, after the discharge of the 
 grand jury first empanneled. 
 
 5. The court shall appoint one ol tho number of every grand jury 
 foreman thereof. 
 
 MODE OF SUMMONING GRAND JURY. 
 
 1. The .jury commissioners, when they select the petit jury, shall, in 
 the same mode, select not less than thirty-two citizens and housekeepers 
 qualified to serve on the grand jury, selecting them, as far as practicable 
 from different parts of the county, from which they shall, by lot, select 
 sixteen, who shall be reported to the court and constitute the grand jury 
 for the next term. The list so returned, sealed, shall be disposed of by 
 the court and clerk, and the grand jurymen be summoned in the same 
 way and manner by the sheriff, as in case of the petit jury. 
 
 2. If a grand juryman shall fail to attend, or be excused for any cause, 
 his place may be supplied from the bystanders, or from the list of names 
 originally drawn and returned by the jury commissioners, as the court 
 may order. 
 
 PETIT .JURORS. 
 
 1. A petit jury shall consist of twelve persons, unless the parties 
 agree that it may be composed of a less number. 
 
 2. No person shall be a competent juryman for the trial of criminal, 
 penal, or civil cases in any conrt, unless he be a white citizen, at least 
 twenty-one years of age, a housekeeper, sober, temperate, discreet and of 
 good demeanor. 
 
 3. No person who has served upon tho panel of the grand or petit 
 ju\j one term of a <^ourt, shall bo eligible lor one year thereafter to be 
 placed upon the panel of the petit jury. 
 
 4. No sherilfor other officer shall at any time summon a juror not 
 qualified as herein required. 
 
 5. No verdict shall be void or voidable because of the want of any of 
 the qualifications hereiii required, nor shall exception be taken to any 
 juryman for the causes above after he is sworn. 
 
 6. Juries de medietate linguae may be directed by the court. 
 
 t. Jurors knowing any fact material to the issue shall disclose the 
 same in open court, upon oath, as evidence. 
 
108 
 
 
 ife' 
 
 8. A juror guilty of a contempt of court may be fined by the court in 
 any sum not exceeding thirty dollars. 
 
 9. No sheriff or other officer shall converse with the jury upon any 
 subject after they have been sworn, unless by leave of the court. 
 
 10. If a juror in any case shall lake, or agree to take, anything, direct- 
 ly or indirectly, to give or refrain from giving his verdict, or shall, from 
 favoiitism or corrupt partiality, give or retrain from giving his verdict, 
 and shall be thereof convicted, such juror shall not thereafter serve on 
 
 any jury, and shall be fined one hundred dollars, and a sura equal to ten 
 times the amount received or agreed to be received. 
 
 11. No civil officer shall be summoned on a petit jury in any court. 
 No transient person, physician, surgeon, practicing attorney, or minister 
 of any religious society, shall be compelled to serve on a petit or grand 
 jury. Cashiers and tellers of all banks doing busir in this Common- 
 wealth, and those who may be supplying their pla(.«. ibr the time, .shall 
 be exempt from all jury service. 
 
 Mode of summoning petit .ruRORs-.iuRY commissioners. 
 
 1. The court, requiring a regular panel of jurors at their several 
 terms, shall appoint three jury commissioners, possessing the qualifica- 
 tions prescribed for petit juryman, resident in different portions of the 
 county, and who have no suit in court which requires the intervention 
 of a jury. The judge shall administer to the commissioners the following 
 oath : You do swear faithfully to discharge the duties required of you 
 as jury commissioners ; that you w411 not, knowingly, select any man as 
 a juryman whom you believe to be unfit and not qualified ; that you will 
 not make known to any one the name of any juryman selected by yoi. 
 and reported on your list to court, until after the commencement of the 
 next term of this court ; that you will not, directly or indirectly, conver- 
 se with any one selected by you as a juryman, concerning the merits of 
 any suit to be tried at the next term of this court, until after said cause 
 may be tried or continued or the jury discharjjed. " 
 
 2. If any person appointed a jury commissioner shall fail or refuse 
 to attend and perform the duties required, without a reasonable excuse, 
 he shall forfeit and pay tw^enty-five dollars ; nor shall the same person act 
 as jury commissioner more than once in the same year. 
 
 3. The jury commissioners, after they have been organized and sworn, 
 shall retire to a jury room or some other apartment designated by the 
 
109 
 
 judge. They shall be kept free from the intrusion oj" any person, and not 
 separate without leave ol the court, until they shall have completed the 
 duties required of them. The clerk shall furnish the commissioners with 
 the names of persons exempted from serving on the petit jury at each 
 term. 
 
 4. They shall select from the citizens of the different portions of the 
 county one hundred persons, or a less number if so directed by the judge, 
 free from all legal exceptions, of fair character, and approved integrity, 
 of « Dund judgment, and well informed, to serve as petit jurors at the 
 next term of the court ; write the names of such persons on separate 
 pieces of paper, as near the same size and appearance as maybe, and 
 fold the same so that the name written thereon may not be seen. The 
 names of the persons so written and folded shall then be deposited in a 
 box, and after being well mixed and shaken the commissioners shall draw 
 from said box the names of thirty persons, one by one, and record the 
 same as drawn, upon paper, which shall be certified and signed by them, 
 directed to the judge of the circuit court, and indorsed " a list of the 
 standing jury." They shall also inclose, in like manner, the list of the 
 names of the remainder originally selected ; which papers they shall 
 deliver to the judge in open court. The two lists shall be sealed and 
 indorsed, and the names of (he commissioners written upon the seals, so 
 that the contents cannot be seen without breaking the seals. 
 
 5. The judge shall deliver the lists to the clerk in open court, and 
 administer to the clerk and his deputies the following oath : " You do 
 tjwear that you wiU not open the jury lists now delivered to you until 
 the time prescribed by law ; and that you will not, directly or indirectly, 
 converse with any one selected as a petit juror concerning any suit 
 pending and for trial in this court at the next term, unless by leave of 
 the court.' Should the clerk subsequently appoint a deputy in vacation, 
 he shall administer to him the like oath. 
 
 6. Within thirty days of the next term, and not before, the clerk 
 (shall open the envelope, and make out a fair copy of the jury list, and 
 iiive the same to the sheriff' or his deputy, who shall, at least three days 
 prior to the first day of the next term, summon the persons to attend 
 on the second day of said term, as petit jurors, by giving per.sonal notice 
 to each juror, or by leaving a written notice at the juror's place of 
 residence with a white member of his family over sixteen years of age. 
 The list shall be returned by the sheriff on the first day of the term, with 
 a certificate thereon of the date and manner in which thejnror was sum- 
 
no 
 
 moned, from which list twenty-four shall be selected from those summoned 
 in the order in which their names appear thereon, who shall compose the 
 regular panel. 
 
 7. A juror legally summoned, failing toattend, without a reasonable 
 excuse, may be fined in any sum not less than one nor more than thirty 
 dollars. 
 
 8. The court may discharge the regular first panel of a jury, after 
 they shall have served one week, and direct another panel of twenty-four 
 to be summoned for the succeeding week, and so on for each week of the 
 term ; said panel may be taken from the original list returned by the jury 
 commissioners, in the order in which their names are recorded in said 
 list ; in like manner may a deficit in any panel be made up when a 
 selected juryman is excused, or fails from my cau»e to attend on the day 
 specified in the summons. 
 
 9. In counties where the busines and population require it, the 
 court may, by an order, increase or reduce the number of persons to be 
 selected by the jury commissioners, from which the panel of twenty-four 
 is to be drawn ; their number shall not be increased above two hundred 
 or reduced below fifty persons. 
 
 10. At the commencement of each term of the court at which jury 
 causes may be tried, the judge shall administer to the sheriff and depu- 
 ties the following oath : " You do swear that without favor or affection, 
 or without a desire to favor or injure the rights of any litigant, you will 
 8;ummou jurors in and for this county, and that to the best of your skill 
 aud judgment you will select discreet, sensible, impartial, and sober 
 men ; and that you will not, directly or indirectly, communicate or cou" 
 verse with any juryman, unless under the direction of the court, touching 
 the subject matter of any suit pending for trial at the time. That you 
 will not by any means attempt to influence, advise, or control a juryman 
 in his opinion in any case under trial." 
 
 11. If, for any cause, the jury commissioners shall not be appointed, 
 or shall fail to select a grand or petit jury, as is provided in this chapter, 
 or the panel selected shall be set aside, or the jury lists returned in court 
 shall be lost or destroyed, the court shall order tl^e sheriff to summon a 
 grand or petit jury of the proper number, who shall attend and perform 
 the duties thereof, respectively, as if they had been regularly selected. 
 
 Mode of /p:LBOTiNa;A jury tp try a. cause. 
 
 1. Juries shall be sutamoned and attend on the second day of the 
 ietta, unless the- court j;. by its order, shall direct thv.ia tobe summoned;for 
 
Ill 
 
 the first day, and also direct jury cases to be docketed for trial on that 
 day. It shall be their duty to give their ooustaut attention at .ourt, and 
 not leave the iiourt-house while in session without leave oi' the court ; for 
 a violation of this duty they may be fined by the court for a contempt, a 
 sum not exceeding ten dollars for each offence, which fine shall be 
 deducted from the pay of the juror. 
 
 2. On the day the jury shall be summoned to attend court the pan^l 
 shall be called, and the names of such as attend, and are not excused by 
 the court, shall be entered of record ; and any deficiency in the panel 
 bhall be supplied as directed in this chapter. 
 
 3. The clerk shall write the names of the jurors entered of record on 
 separate slips of paper, as near the same size and appearance as may be, 
 and when a jury is wanted for a trial of a cause, the same shall be drawn 
 from a box alter the papers shall have been dei)osited therein and well 
 mixed. The clerk shall provide and keep for that purpose a suitable box 
 with a sliding lid. 
 
 4. In criminal cases, where the defendant is entitled to a peremp- 
 tory challenge of more than *.hree jurors, the clerk, under the direction of 
 the court, shall draw from the box twelve names, who shall compose the 
 jury to try the cause unless some one or all of them shall be challenged ; 
 in which case the clerk bhall draw from the box as many more as may be 
 required, and as often as required until a jury be obtained, or the whole 
 pmel be exhausted ; then the court shall order the sheriff to make up the 
 deficiency from bystanders. 
 
 11. A petit juryman shall be paid two dollars for each day he is in 
 attendance upon the court. A grand juryman shall be paid one dollar 
 and fifty cents per day for as many days as he may serve. The clerk 
 shall not issue to the jurors any certificate of service, but shall in a book 
 to be kept for that purpose, enter the name of each juror entitled to pay, 
 and the amount to be paid him, by w^hich book, the trustee shall be 
 regulated in making payment to jurors, in which the juror shall sign his 
 name as evidence of payment. 
 
 12. By standers summoned, and not sworn as jurors shall be disn^har- 
 ged without pay. If sworn, and serve more than o:ie day at any OU:© 
 time, the^y shall be px^id as other jurors, 
 
 13. The court may adjourn the whole or a p^rt of the juryi tp any 
 day of the term, but they shall not be paid lor the tima they stand 
 adjourned. The grand juty may be adjourned, in like manner, without 
 pay. 
 
112 
 
 it 
 
 
 r* 
 
 14. If the cullenge of a party to the array shall be sustained, the 
 court may order the whole panel to be discharged, and a new one to be 
 summoned from bystanders, or a special jury may be summoned to try 
 the case of such party. 
 
 Art. III. — The Jury Law ok Wihoonsin. 
 
 All persons who are citizens of the United States and qualified 
 electors of the State shall be liable to be drawn as jurors, except as 
 provided in these Statutes. 
 
 WHO TO MAKF. LISTS OK JURORS. 
 
 The supervisors of the several towns, the trustees of the several 
 villages which constitute one or more separate electio)i districts at general 
 elections, and the aldermen in each ward in the several cities, except as 
 hereinafter provided, shall, within thirty days after the first Monday in 
 May in each year, make out from the last poll list of such town, village 
 or ward, a list containing the names of not less than ten, nor more than 
 twenty persons, believed to be qualified to act as jurors. Such lists shall 
 be certified by the officers making- the same and immediately forwarded 
 by mail, or otherwise, to the county clerks of their respective counties, 
 who shiill file the same, and lay the same before their respective county 
 boards at their annual meeting. The provisions of this and the next 
 section shall not apply to the counties named in section two thousand 
 five hundred and twenty-nine. 
 
 COUNTY BOARDS TO SEI.KCT JURORS FROM LISTS. 
 
 The several county boards shall select from .sueh lists, the names of 
 one hundred and forty persons to serve as petit jurors, and seventy-five 
 as grand jurors, in the county for the ensiling year, and make a list of the 
 same ; but when, through neglect of any town board, board of trustees, 
 or aldermen, to make and return such list to the county clerk, the whole 
 numbe. returned shall be insutficieut, the county board shall supply the 
 deficiency ])y selecting as nearly as practicable in equal proportions from 
 the poll lists of the last general election, in such towns, villages and 
 wards, as shall have so failed to return such lists, the number required, 
 of names of persons known to be qualified. Such lists so made shall be 
 signed by the chairman of the county board, and be forthwith delivered 
 to the clerk of the circuit court. 
 
 EFKECT OF FAILURE TO RETURN LIST. 
 
 The failure of any of the supervisors, trustees or aldermen, to return 
 
113 
 
 to tlxe county clerk a ]Ui of names as above required, shall not render 
 irregular or invalid any list ol jurors otherwise regularly selected by the 
 ("ouiity board. 
 
 WHO TO UK PIi\C!KU ON JUUY LIST. 
 
 In preparing- su h .jury list, the several supervisors, trustees, alder- 
 men and county board.s, shall sehnd such persons only as they know, or 
 have good reason to believe, are possi ssed 61' the qualitications required 
 by law. and are of approved integrity, fair character, of sound judgement 
 and well inibrmed. 
 
 PUOCPnCDINltS ON FAILURE TO MAKE LIST. 
 
 II', lor any cau'^e, such 'ist shall not be made and delivered as afore- 
 said by ilie county board nt the annual meeting in November, such board 
 shall mak > out and deliver the same at the next, or some regular meeting 
 thereof. IT, in any county, the coimty board shall not be able to select 
 the number of persons above requir(^d for jurors, thev shall sele(;t a less 
 number, and tlij highest number possible. 
 
 JUKOllS, HOW DRAWN. — NAMES TO IJE PLACED IN BOX. 
 
 On receiving isuch lists, the clerk of the circuit court, shall write the 
 names of the persons contained therein ou separate pieces of paper, each, 
 in the same miuner, as near as may be, and fold the same so that the 
 names written thereon shall not be visible, and shall deposit such pieces 
 of paper, those containing the names of the grand jurors in one box, and, 
 those containing the names of the petit jurors in another box, from which 
 they shall be drawn as hereinafter provided. 
 
 HOW AND WHEN JURORS DRAWN. 
 
 At least fifteen days before the sitting of any court at which a jury, 
 is required to attend, the clerk of the sheriff or under sheriff, and a justice 
 of the peace, shall proceed to draw the names of thirty-six persons from 
 the box containing the names of petit jurors to serve as petit jurors to 
 serve as petit jurors, at such court, at such court, and unless otherwise 
 ordered by the court as hereinafter provided, he shall in like manner, anqL 
 before like witnesses, proceed to draw the names of seventeen persons 
 from the box coutaining the names of the grand jurors to serve as grfind. 
 jurors of said court, but the county board of any couhty, may by resolu- 
 tion duly adopted, limit the petit jurors to be draw^i to any number, iilqI/ 
 less than eighteen, which number shall thereafter be so drawn until such, 
 resolution shall be rescinded* 
 8 
 
114 
 
 
 
 
 Notice of Drawing. 
 
 At least twelve days' notice of the drawing of the petit jury shall be 
 given by snch clerk, by publishing the same in a newspaper of the county, 
 if there be any, and if not, by affixing such notice on the outer door of 
 the house where the court for which the jury is drawn is about to be 
 held. 
 
 Venires, when and how used. 
 
 The clerk shall, at least twelve days before the first day of courts 
 issue and deliver to the sheriff or under-sheriff of said county, a ven*. 
 for the petit jury, under the seal of the court, commanding him to sum- 
 mon the persons so drawn as jurors to appear before the said court, at or 
 before the hour of eleven o'clock in the forenoon, on the first day of the 
 term thereof, or at such other time as may have been fixed by the presid- 
 ing judge of said court, to serve as petii jurors. And when ordered to 
 draw a grand jury, as provided by law be shall in like manner issue and 
 deliver a venire, commanding the sheriif, or under sheriff, to summon the 
 persons so drawn as grand jurors to appear before the said court, at the 
 time specified in the order of said judge. 
 
 Jurors, how summoned ; Venires to be returned. 
 
 The sheriff or under-sheriff shall summon the persons named in such 
 venires to attend such court as grand or petit jurors as the case may be, 
 by gaving personal notice to each person, or by leaving a written notice 
 r.c his place of residence with some person of proper age. He shall return 
 puch venires to the court at the opening thereof, specifying those who 
 were summoned, and the manner in which each person was notified. 
 Grand and petit jurors shall be summoned at least four days before the 
 sitting of the Court. All special vewiVes shall be executed by the officer 
 to whom delivered according to the command thereof. 
 
 special venire, when to issue. 
 
 Whenever at any term of any circuit court, there shall be an entire^ 
 absence of jurors of the regular panel, whether from an omission to draw 
 and summon the same, or because of a challenge to the panel, or from 
 any other case, the court may order a special venire to issue to the sheriff 
 commanding him to summon from the county at large a number, therein 
 named, of qualified persons to serve as jurors during the term ; and 
 whenever there shall be a deilciency of jurors of the regular panel, at any 
 time during the term, for any cause whatever, the court may order a like 
 
116 
 
 upecial venire to isBue to the sheriff, commanding him to summon 
 from the county, e suffiiiient of qualified jurors to fill the regular 
 panel, or a less number, in his discretion. 
 
 BysTANDEHS may be CALTiED, WHEN. 
 
 When by reason of challenge, or othervA'ise, a sufficient number of 
 jurors, duly drawn and summoned, cannot be obtained for the trial of 
 any cause, civil or criminal, the court shall cause jurors, duly qualified, 
 to be returned from the bystanders, or from the county at large, to com- 
 plete the panel for such trial, and the court may, in its discretion, order 
 a special venire to issue for that purpose, or such jurors may be recurned 
 by the sheriff, of his deputy, the coroner, or any disinterested person 
 appointed thereof by the court, without writ. 
 
 G-UAND .TUROR3. — WhEN TO BK SUMMONED. 
 
 Grand jurors shall be summoned to attend each term of the circuit 
 court, unless the judge thereof shall make and file with the clerk, at least 
 fifteen days before the sitting of the said court, an order in writing 
 directing such jury not to be summoned. 
 
 Special venire. 
 
 In case of a deficiency of any grand jurors, for any caiise, the court 
 may order a special ventre to issue to the sheriff, commanding him to 
 summon forthwith from the county such number of qualified persons to 
 serve as grand jurors as may be required. 
 
 <mAND .lURY MAY APPOINT A CLERK. 
 
 The grand jury may appoint one of their number to be their clerk, to' 
 preserve minutes of the proceedings before them, which minutes shall 
 be delivered to the attorney general or district attorney, when the grand 
 jury shall so direct. 
 
 MAY serve twice AT SAME TERM. 
 
 When the grand jury attending any court shall have been dismissed 
 before the court is adjourned, without day, they may be summoned to 
 attend again in the same terra, at such time as the court shall direct, for 
 the despatch of any business that n-ay come before them. 
 
 FINE FOR non-attendance. 
 
 If any person lawfully summoned to attend as a juror, in ony court 
 
 I 
 
 t ■ 
 
116 
 
 It'.' 
 
 
 of record, shall neglect to atteiiil, without; any suflicient excuse, lie shall 
 pay a line not exceeding forty dollars, which shall be imposed by the 
 court to which the juror was summoned, and shall be paid into the 
 county treasury. 
 
 FINK KOIl OFFICIAL NK«HiEGT. 
 
 When, by neglect of any of the duties required in this chapter, to be 
 performed by any of the oflicers, or persons herein mentioned, the jurors 
 to be returiunl shall not be duly drawn and summoned to attend the 
 court, every person guilty of such neglect shall pay a line not exceeding 
 twenty dollars, to be imposed by the same court, into the treasury of the 
 county in which the offence is committed. 
 
 PENALTY UPON CLKRK FOR FRAUD. 
 
 If the clerk of any court shall bo guilty of any fraud, either by 
 practicing on a jury box previously to a draft, or in drawing a juror, or 
 in returning into the box the name of any juror which had been lawfully 
 drawn out, and drawing or substituting another in his stead, or in any 
 other way, or in the drawing of jurors, he shall forfeit for each such 
 offence not less than fifty, nor more than five hundred dollars. 
 
 CERTIFICATES OF JURORS' ATTENDANCE. 
 
 The clerk of the court, whenever a juror shall be discharged, or at 
 the end of each term of court, or wathin ten days thereafter, shall make 
 out a certificate to each juror attending the court, certifying the number 
 of days' attendance, the number of miles travelled, and the amount of 
 compensation due him ; and every such certificat'5 thall be rec ipted for 
 by the juror before it shall be delivered to him, and thereupon the 
 county treasurer shall pay the amount thei-eof, out of the county trea- 
 sury. 
 
 Jurors' fees— Per diem and mileage. 
 
 Each grand and petit juror, summoned upon any venire shall 
 receive tw^o dollars for each day's actual attendance upon any circuit 
 court, and six cents per mile for each mile actually; traveled, in going and 
 returning by the most usual route ; but shall be paid for no day when 
 the court is not in session, unless specially ordered by the presiding 
 judge. 
 
 pru 
 
 shj 
 
 he 
 
 whi 
 
 oft 
 
 box 
 
 rou 
 
 coui 
 of i 
 
117 
 
 Talesmen's fees. 
 
 Every tnlesrnoii, Burnmoued nnd acting ub a juror, shall receive two 
 dollars per day lor each day's actual servicer. 
 
 Art. TV. — the .iuiiy law of rONNECTirux. 
 
 Petit jurous. 
 
 The justices of the peace, selectmen, constables, and grand jurors in 
 eoch town, shall meet on the lirst Monday of June annually, and choose 
 by separate ballot, from the electors of their town, the number hereinaf- 
 ter designated of persons, esteemed in their community as men of good 
 character, approved integrity, sound judgment, and lair education, to serve 
 as jurors from siich town, in the Superior Court, Court of Common Pleas, 
 and district court ii' such there be in the county to which such town 
 belongs, and in trials b(^l'ore justices of the peace in such town, for one 
 year from the first day of the following September. 
 
 Notice of such meeting shall be given by the town clerk in each 
 town, designating the hour and place of holding the same, by publishing 
 the notice twice in a daily newspaper published in the town, or, if there 
 be no sac-h newspnper, by posting the notice on the public sign-posts, in 
 the town at least five days inclusive before the meeting is to bo held. 
 
 The chairman of the meetings at which such jurors are chosen shall, 
 on or before the first day of .Tiily, in each year, send a list of the persons 
 thus chos(Mi to the clerk of the Superior Court in their several counties. 
 A certificate of a form approved by the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
 Cotirt of Errors, and prepared and sent to the selectmen of the several 
 towns by the clerks of the Superior Court, and signed ])y the chairman, 
 shall be affixed teach list. 
 
 It shall be the duty of the clerk of the Superior Court in each county, 
 prior to the lirst day of August in each year, to prepare slips upon which 
 shall bt! placed the dames of the jurors of each town in his county, and 
 he shall place such slips in box'^s, according to the respective towns in 
 which such JTirors reside, anil each box shall be marked with the name 
 of the town from which the respective jurors are appointed. Such jury 
 boxes shall be in ihe care and custody of the clerk of the Superior 
 Court. 
 
 It shall also be the duty of the clerk of the Superior Court in each 
 county, annually, in the month of August to transmit to the town clerks 
 of the several towujb ihereiu, a list of the jurors for their respective town?) 
 
118 
 
 
 which list shall coustiluto tho list of justice jurors for those towns re^speot• 
 ively, for one year from the first day of the following September. The 
 town clerk of eaih town shall place slips containing- the names of tho 
 justice jurors for such town in a box to be kept by him for that purpose, 
 which box shall be provided by tho town, and have a lock thereon. 
 
 At some convenient time before each term and session of the Superior 
 Court for the transaction of ciminal business only, or of civil as well as 
 criminal business, and at any time when directed by the Superior C/ourt 
 or by the judge assigned to hold any term or session, thereof for the trial 
 of civil causes, in any county, the clerk of such court shall, in the presence 
 of the sherifl'or one of his deputies, in such county, draw from a 
 suitable number of th^ jury boxes in his charge and custody, the names 
 of eighteen jurors, unless a larger number shall be ordered by such court 
 and judge, and then such larger number (exclusive of the names drawui 
 if any, of persons that are dead) without seeing any of the names he 
 draws before he draws them, to attend such cotirt. In like manner, the 
 clerk of the court of Common Pleasin any county, when directed by that 
 court or by the judge thereof, shall draw from as uitable number of said 
 boxes the names of eighteen jurors, unless a larger number shall be 
 ordered, and then such larger mimber to attend and serve at said court. 
 The clerk of the district court shall, in the same manner, draw from the 
 jury boxes in his charge and custody the names of eighteen or more jurors 
 to attend and serve at said court, when said court or the judge thereof shall 
 so order. Warrants shall be issued by the clerk of the court who shall draw 
 jurors for such court under the provisions of this section, to summon 
 t'liem to attend and serve at said court; and such warrants shall be 
 directed to the constables of the towns; in which such jurors respectively 
 beside. 
 
 The Siiperior Court, Court of Common Pleas, or district court, may, 
 at any time, at its discretion, order the drawing of such additional 
 number of jurors as shall be sufficient to prevent the necessity of summon- 
 ing talesmen ; and wh -n a warrant shall be issued to summon such 
 jurors to attend and serve in either of said courts, il shall be directed to 
 the sheriff of the county, or his deputy, or to either constable of the town, 
 wherein the jurors drawn resiiectively reside. 
 
 Every person, not a member of the jury empaneled to try any cause 
 before any court, who shall converse with any such member concerning 
 such cause, before such jury is discharged therefrom, and every such 
 member who shall converse concerning the same, before such discharge, 
 
119 
 
 with any other person than a member of sut h panel, shall he fined not 
 more than one hundred dollars ; and on the trial of any prosecution 
 ajjaiuHt another for violating this section, any person shall be compelled 
 as a witness to make full disctlosure of his knowledge of the fat'ts relat- 
 ing" thereto, with shall not be used against him. 
 
 In the trial of any cai)ital case, or case involving imprisonment for 
 life, the court may, in its discretion rc<juire the jury to be and remain 
 together, in i'harge of the sherifl' during the trial, and until they are 
 discharged by the court from further consideration of tl^e case. 
 
 The court shall state its opinion to the Jury upon all questions of less 
 arising in the trial of a criminiil cause, arul submit to their consideration 
 both the law and the facts, without any di'^ection how to find their ver- 
 dict. 
 
 Each juror, except on inquests and as otherwise provided in this 
 title, shall receive two dollars and fifty cents a day ; each grand juror 
 and standing juror six cents for each mile of travel from his place of 
 residence to the place of holding the court and back, for each week of 
 his attendance as such juror, (each juror for assessing damages or benefits 
 on highways one dollar and fifty cents a day ; eacsh jrror in a civil action 
 before a iustice of the peace one dollar a day ) 
 
 Grand Jurors. 
 
 Every town, including the towns of Hartford, New Iliven, and 
 Bridgeport, shall at its annual town meeting each year, elect not less 
 than two nor more than six grand jurors, who shall hold their offices for 
 ihe term of one year from the day of their election, and until their suc- 
 cessors are elected and qualified. 
 
 The grand jurors of the several tow^ns shall diligently inquire after 
 and make due complaint of all crimes and misdemeanors that shall come 
 to their knoM'ledge, except in towns where by law those duties are 
 devolved on other officers exclusively ; and said complaint shall be made 
 to the court having cognizance of the offence, or to some justice of the 
 peace in the town where the offence was committed. Any grand juror 
 who, after he is sworn, shall wilfully and corruptly neglect to make 
 seasonable complaint whi(ih, under this section, it is his duty to make, 
 of any crime of misdemeanor committed in the town where he lives, 
 shall forfeit the sum pf two dollars to him who shall sue therefor. 
 
 Grand jurors may make complaint for any violation of any by-law 
 or regulation imposing a penalty, legally made and adopted by any town 
 
120 
 
 Mi. 
 
 tf'^ 
 
 oi boToiigh, to a justice of the peace iu the towu where the offense is 
 committed, and said justice of the peace, and any appellate court in case 
 of an appeal, shall have the same power and take like proceedings in res- 
 pect to said complaint as may be had in resiiect to complaints for mis- 
 demeanors punishable with like penalties. 
 
 Grand jurors may require any person informing them of the com- 
 niission of a crime, to make information under oath, and may administer 
 the witness oath to him. 
 
 T' ' grand jurors in each towu or any thr^'e of them, may meet to 
 advise concerning offenses committed therein, and may call before them, 
 at such meetings, any witnesses, to be examined touching the same ; and 
 if any person shall refuse to appear before them at such meeting, being- 
 summoned by competent authority, they may upply to a justice of the 
 peace for a capiat, who may issue one to bring such person before them ; 
 and if any person appearing, or, being brought before them, shall refuse 
 to l.)e sworn, or, being sworn, shall refuse to answer any proper question, 
 they moy complain to any justice of the peace in the county where 
 si:cli meeting is had, who shall cause such person to be brought before 
 him, and commit to him to jail, there to remain, at his own expense, 
 until ho shall give evidence as required. Suid grand jurors, when so 
 met, shall have all the powers of a justice of the peace, when holding 
 court, to commit for contempt. 
 
 Any town which shall neglect to elect grand jurors as required by 
 law, shall forfeit the sum of twenty dollars to the county in which su h 
 town is situated. 
 
 Every owner or possessor of lauds shall cut down all wild carrots 
 and Canada thistles growing thereon, or in the highway adjoining, so 
 often as to prevent their going to seed ; and upon failure so to do, any 
 person aggrieved, or any citij^en of the town wherein the lands are 
 sicuited may complain to any grand juror of said town, who shall there- 
 upon forwith notify su-'h owner or possessor of su-h complaint. 
 
 And said grand juror shall be paid for such service Jrom the treasury 
 of the town ten cents for ea h mile or travel in giving such notice. And 
 if said owner or possv ssor shall still neglect to comply with the provisions 
 of this section, he shall be lined not more than live dollars, nor less than 
 one dollar, for each and every day of such neglect after said notice. And 
 the expense of the grand juror who served the notice shall be included 
 in the <'0sts of the prosecution. 
 
121 
 
 The Superior Court may, when necessary, order a grand jury of 
 eighteen electors of the county where saidcoust is sitting, to be summon- 
 ed, empanelled, and sworn to inqiiire after and present such offenses as 
 shall be cognizable by said court ; and no person shall .be put to plead, 
 or held to trial, for any crime, the punishment of which may be death 
 or imprisonment for life, unless an indii'tment shall have been found 
 against him for such crime, by a grand jury, legally impaneled and 
 Bworn, and no bill shall be presented by any grand jury, unless twelve 
 at least of the jurors agree to it. 
 
 Art. v.— TiTic jupy law of Illinois. 
 
 Jury list to be prepaked annually. 
 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in 
 the Greneral Assembly: That the county board of each county shall at or 
 before the time of its meeting, in Septsmber, in each year, or at any time 
 thereafter, when necessary for the purposes of this act, make a list of a 
 sufficient number, not less than one-tenth of the legal voters of each town 
 or precinct in the county, giving the place of residonco of each name on 
 the list, to be known as a jury list. 
 
 Petit .iurors for the year-their qualifications. 
 
 At the meeting of the county board in the respective counties in this 
 state, in September, in the year ISYS, and in each year thereafter, such 
 board shall select from such list a number of persons equal to one hun- 
 dred for each trial term of the circuit and other courts of record, except 
 county courts, which may be provided by law to be held during the 
 succeeding year, and in the county of Cook, two hundred for each term 
 of the circuit and superior courts of Cook county, and one hundred for 
 the criminal court of Cook county for each, trial term, to servo as petit 
 jurors: Provided, that the persons selected to serve as jurors in courts of 
 record having jurisdiction only in and for cities, sh?ll be selected from 
 four of the most convenient towns to said court, to be designated by the 
 judge of siich court, and the county clerks of the county notified thereof 
 l)efore the first day of September next ; and in making such selection 
 shall choose a proportionate number from the residents of each town or 
 precinct, and shall take the names of such only as are : 
 
 First-Inhabitants of the town or precinct not exempt from serving 
 on juries. 
 
 Second— Of tbe age of twenty-one years or upwards, and under sixty 
 yeard old. 
 
 ti 
 
 
122 
 
 
 Third — In the possession of their natural faculties, and not infirm 
 or decrepid. 
 
 Fourth — Free from all legal exceptions, of fair character, of approved 
 integrity, of sound judgement, well inforined, and who understand the 
 English language. 
 
 LI^T AT .SUI5SEQITENT MEETINO. 
 
 If, for any reason, the list or the selection provided for in the fore- 
 going sections of this act shall not be made at the meeting of the board 
 held at the time specified, such list or selection shall be made at any 
 meeting to be held as soon thereafter as may be. 
 
 EXCEPTIONS. 
 
 The following persons shall be exemi^t from serving as jurors, to wit : 
 The Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor of Public 
 Accounts, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Attorney 
 General, members of the General Assembly during their term of office, 
 all judges of courts, all clerks of courts, sheriffs, coroners, postmasters, 
 mail carriers, practising attorneys, all officers of the United States, 
 officiating ministers of the gospel, school teachers during the terms of 
 school, practising physicians, constant ferrymen, mayors of cities, police- 
 men and active members of the lire department ; provided, that every 
 firemen wht shall have faithfully and actively served as such in any 
 volunteer fire department in any city of this State, for the term of seven 
 years, may thereafter be exempt from serving on juries in all courts 
 
 OhECKING list-subsequent r^EIiECTIONS. 
 
 At the time of making such selection, the name of the person selec- 
 ted shall be checked off from such list, and shall not be again selected as 
 a juror till every person named upon such list qualified to serve as a 
 juror has been selected and all subsequent selections of jurors by such 
 board shall be made from such list until all persons thereon qualified to 
 serve has been selected, or until the expiration of two years from the time 
 of the making of such list, when a new list shall be made : Provided, if 
 any person who has been selected as a juror shall not have been drawn, 
 or have served upon a jury during the year for which he has selected, he 
 shall, if qualifiied, be selected for the next year. 
 
 New list. — List of persons serving furnished county clerk. 
 
 As often as one list shall have been exhausted, another shall be 
 furnished, as provided in section 2 of this chapter, and the jurors shall 
 
 Atl 
 said coui 
 clerk an( 
 said nam 
 tiality d 
 sous thei 
 thiit such 
 cases, to ( 
 additiona 
 requiring 
 I should th 
 [know to 
 absent frc 
 lie is lega 
 olerk to 
 clerk of s 
 shall hav 
 pending 
 Jdefendan 
 jhe couvin 
 jobtained 
 [discretion 
 l^lerk to d 
 exceeding 
 |he selectee 
 
 r< 
 
123 
 
 he selected therefrom in the inauner provided in section 2 and 3. The 
 clerks of the circuit coui..s and other courts of record in the county, shall, 
 at the end of each term of court, furnish the county clerk a list of all 
 persons who have served as jurors during the term. 
 
 LIST OF OFFICE. — NAMES IN BOX. 
 
 A list of jurors so selected shall be kept in the olfice of the county 
 clerk, who shall write the name and residence of each person selected 
 upon a separate ticket and put the whole into a box to be kept for that 
 
 purpose. 
 
 DRAWING JURORS. 
 
 At least twenty days before the first day of any trial term oi any of 
 said courts the clerk of such courts shall repair to the office of the county 
 clerk and in the presence of such county clerk after the box containing 
 said names has been well shaken by the county clerk, and without par- 
 tiality draw from said box the names of a sufficient number of said per- 
 sons theu residents of said county not less than thirty, for each two weeks, 
 that such court will probably be in ses.sion for the trial of common law 
 cases, to constitute the petit jurors for that term ; and where there is an 
 additional judge in such court, a like number for such additional judge 
 requiring a jury, unless such court shall otherwise order provided, that 
 should the clerk draw from said box the name of a person whom he may 
 know to be dead, to have been selected as a grand juror, a non-resident, 
 absent from the i^tate, unable to attend in consequence of illness or that 
 I he is legally disqualified to serve as a juror, it shaU be the duty of said 
 clerk to report the name of such person to the county clerk; and said 
 [clerk of such court shall draw other names until the required number 
 shall have been selected. Provided, also, that whenever there shall be 
 pending for trial in any of said courts, any criminal cause wherein the 
 defendant is charged with a felony and the judge holding said court shall 
 Ibe convinced from the circumstances of the cases that a jury cannot be 
 lobtained from the regular panel to try said cause, said judge may in his 
 Idisoretion prior to the day fixed for the trial of said cause, direct the 
 |derk to draw (in the same manner as tha regular panel is drawn not 
 exceeding one huudred names as a special panel from which a jury m.&j 
 |he selected to try said names. 
 
 DRAWING Grand jury. 
 
 If a grand jury shall be required by law or by the order 
 of the judge for any term of court it shall be the duty of the 
 
 i 
 
 :i 
 
124 
 
 1*- 
 
 6oiinty board in each of the counties in this state wherein such 
 court is directed to be holden, at least twen+y days before the sitting of 
 such court, to select twenty-three persons possessing the qualifications 
 as provided in section 2 of this act, and as near as may be, a proportionate 
 number for each town or precinct in their respective counties, to serve as 
 grand jurors at such term ; and to cause their clerk, within five days 
 thereafter, to certify the names of the persons so selected as grand jurors 
 to the clerk of the court for which they are selected, who shall issue and 
 deliver to the sheriff of the county wherein the court is to be held, at 
 least ten days before the term of the court for which they shall have 
 been selected, or during term time if the court shall so order, a summon 
 commanding him to summon the persons so selected as aforesaid, to 
 appear before such court at or before the hour of eleven o'clock a. m. ou 
 the first day of the term, or upon such other day as the judge shall direot 
 to constitute a grand jury for such term. The sheritf shall serve isuch 
 summons in the manner provided in section 11 ol this act, for service of 
 summons on petit jurors, and for any refusal or neglect so to do, shall be 
 deemed guilty of a contempt of court, and may be fined therefore as pro- 
 vided in section 11 of this act for default in summoning petit jurors, u 
 for any reason the panel of grand jurors shall not be full at the opening 
 of such court, the judge shall direct the sheriff to summon from the body 
 of the county a sufficient number of persons having the qualifications of 
 jurors, as provided by this ait, to fill the panel. 
 
 SUMMONS FOR PETIT .lURORS. 
 
 The clerk of the court shall, within lire days after such drawing 
 issue to the sheriff, a summons commauding him to summon as petit 
 jurors, a sufficient num<ber, not less then thirty of the persons so drawn, 
 giving their residences, to appear at the place of holding such court, atlhe 
 hour often o'clock a,m, of the first day of the term or upon such other 
 day of the terra as the judg' shall direct, and a like number to appear at 
 the same place and hour two w^eeks after the time at which the former 
 number of jurors were summoned to appear, and the same number foi 
 each two weeks thereafter, the court will probably be in session ; wiiicii 
 summons shall be served before the sitting of the court. 
 
 SERVING SUMMONS — RETURN— PENALTY AOAINsT SHERIFF. 
 
 It shall be the duty of the sheriff to execute the summons by leadl 
 in'g the same or delivered a copy thereof to, or at the usual place of abodel 
 of, each of the persons directed to be summoned to constitute the jury mI 
 
 m excess 
 
12« 
 
 1 such 
 ;tiiig of 
 .cations 
 rtionate 
 serve as 
 ve days 
 i jurors 
 sue aud 
 held, at 
 all have 
 summon 
 isaid, to 
 a. m. ou 
 ill direct 
 I've 8uch 
 ervice ol 
 
 shall be 
 e as pro- 
 rors. Ii 
 
 opening 
 :he body 
 Uions of 
 
 drawing 
 as petit 
 drawn 
 lit, at the 
 ch other 
 ippear at 
 e former 
 mber foi| 
 u ; whicli 
 
 F. 
 
 by Vi?Ml 
 of abodel 
 e jury Ml 
 
 afon^said, and to make returu thereof on or before the return diiy, t.o the 
 olerk of the court in which said jurors are to serve, with an indorsement 
 thereon, certifying on whom it bus been executi-d, and the time vs'hen ; 
 aud in default of so doing, such sheriff or other officer shall b.^ considered 
 as guilty of a contempt, and may be fined, for the use of the proper county 
 in any sum not less than |10 nor more than |200 ; and it shall be duty of 
 the court, upon the return of such summons, to inquire into the cause of 
 any fnilure to serve any such juror, and unless he shall find that the 
 sheriif has used proper diligence to serve such juror, he shull infli(;t the 
 the fine aforesaid. In a copy of said summons it shall not be necessary 
 to enter the names and residences of all the jurors, but shall be sufficient 
 to recite the name and residence of the person to be served by such copy, 
 land adding thereto : Among others, as set forth in the original summons. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF JT'RORS — FILLING PANEL. 
 
 The judge shall examine the jurors who appear, and if more than twenty- 
 fonr petit jui'ors who are qualified and not subject to any exemption, or 
 any of the disqualifications provided in this act, shall appear and remain 
 alter all excuses are allowed, the court shall discharge by lot the number 
 in excess of twenty four. If for any reason the panel of petit jurors shall 
 not be full at the opening of such court, or at any time during the term, 
 the clerk of such court may again repair to the olfice of the county clerk 
 aud draw in the same manner as at the first drawing such panel, who 
 shall be summoned in the same manner as the others, and, if necessary, 
 jurors may continue to be so drawni and summoned from time to time 
 until the panel shall be filled. In case a jury shall be required in such 
 court for trial for any cause, before the panel shall be filled in the manner 
 herein provided, the court shall direct the sherift" to suramoji from the 
 bystanders, or from the body of the county, a sufficient numb.u' of of per- 
 sons having the qualifications of jurors, as provided in this act, to fill the 
 panel, in order that a jury to try such cause might be drawn therefromi 
 aud when such jury is drawn, the persons selected from the bystanders, 
 or from the body of the county, to fill the panel, and not chosen on the 
 ury, shall be discharged from the panel at the contdusion of the trial. 
 Provided, that persons selected from the bystanders, as provided in this 
 section shall not thereby be disqualified or exempt from service as jurors 
 when regularly drawn by the clerk for that purpose, in the manner 
 provided in this act. 
 
 -I 
 
126 
 
 
 WHEN REUULAH PANEIi EXHAUSTED— SEEKING TO BE A JUKOR OR TO 
 
 GET PERSON ON A JURY. 
 
 When by reason of challenge in the seleoticii of* a jury for the trial 
 of any oause, or by reason of the sudden sickness or absence of any jnror 
 for any cause, the regular panel shall be exhausted, the court may direct 
 the sheriff to summon a sufficient number of persons having the qualifi- 
 cations of jurors to till the panel for the pending trial ; but, up n object- 
 ion by either party to the cause to the sheriff summoning a sufficient 
 number of persons to fill the panel, the court shall appoint a special 
 bailiff to summon such person : provided, the same person shall not be 
 appointed special bailiff more than once at any term of court. Any person 
 who shall seek the position of a juror, or who shall ask any attorney or 
 other officer of the court or other person, to secure his selection as a 
 juryman, shall be deemed guilty of a contempt of court, and be fined 
 not exceeding $20, and shall thereby be disqualified from serving as 
 a juror for that term, and such fact shall be sufficient ground for challenge. 
 Any attorney or party to a suit pending for trial ac that term who 
 shall request or solicit the placing of any person upon the jury, shall be 
 deemed guilty of a contempt of the court and be fined not exceeding $100, 
 and the person so sough to be put upon the jury shall be disqualified to 
 serve as a juror at that term of court. 
 
 CAUSKS FOR CHALLENGE. 
 
 It shall be sufficient cau^e of challenge of a petit juror that he lacks 
 any one of the qualifications mentioned in section two of this act ; or if he 
 is not one of the regular panel, that he has served as a juror on the trial 
 of a cause in any court of record in the county within one year previous 
 to the time of his being offered as a juror ; or that he is a party to a suit 
 pending for trial in that court, at that term. It shall be the diity 
 of the court to discharge from the panel all jurors who do not pos- 
 sess the qualifications provided m this act, as soon as the fact is discover- 
 ed : Provided, if a person has served on a jury in a court of record within 
 one year he shall be exempt from again serving during such year, unless 
 he waives such exemption ; Provided, further, that it shall not be a caustt 
 of challenge that a juror has read in the newspapers an account of the 
 commi.ssion of the crime with which the prisoner is charged, if such juror 
 shall state, on oath, that he believes he can render an impartial verdict, 
 according to the law and the evidence : Aad, provided, farther, that in the 
 trial of any criminal cause, the fact that a person called as a juror has 
 

 12T 
 
 fonaed an opinion or impression, based upon rumor or upon newspaper 
 Btatements (about the truth of which he has expressed no opinion), shall 
 not disqualify him to serve as a juror in such cases, if he shall, npon oath, 
 state that he believes he can fairly and impartially render a verdict there 
 in, in accordance with the law and the evidence, and the court shall be 
 satisfied of the truth of such statement. 
 
 Juror not appearing. 
 
 Every person who shall fail to attend, when lawfully summoned to 
 appear as a grand or petit juror, as aforesaid, without having a reason- 
 able excuse, shall be considered as guilty of a contempt, and shall be 
 fined by the courts, respectively, in any sum not less than $5 nor more 
 than $100, for the use of the proper county, unless good cause be shown 
 for such default ; and it shall be the duty of the court to order a writ of 
 attachment, returnable forthwith against all such delinquents, and upon 
 the return thereof the court shall proceed to, assess said fine unless the 
 person or persons so attached shall show good cause for such delin- 
 quency ; Provided, that the oath or affirmation of any such delinquent, 
 shall, at all times, be received as competent evidence. 
 
 Impanelling the Grand Jury. Full panel. 
 
 A full panel of the grand jury shall cousint of twenty-three persons, 
 sixteen of whom shall be sufficient to constitute a grand jury. 
 
 Evidence required — special venire. 
 
 No grand jury shall make presentments of their own knowledge, 
 upon the information of a less number than two of their own body, un- 
 less the juror giving the information is previously sworn as a witness, in 
 which case, if the evidence shall be deemed sufficient, an indictment 
 may be found thereon in like manner as upon the evidence of any other 
 witness who may not be of the jury. The judge of any court of record of 
 competent jurisdiction may order a special venire to be issued for a grand 
 jury at any time when he shall be of opinion that public justice requires 
 it. The order for such venire shall be entered on the records of the court 
 by the clerk thereof; and such clerk shall forth with issue such vetiire under 
 his hand and the seal of the Court, and deliver the same to the sheriff, 
 who shall execute the same by summoning, in the same manner now 
 provided or that may hereafter be provided bylaw for summoning jurors, 
 twenty-three persons, qualified by law to constitute a grand jury. Such 
 venire shall state the day on which such persons shall appear before the 
 court. 
 
128 
 
 I • 
 
 I iM PANELLING PETIT JUUOU8.— DRAWINO. 
 
 It shall bo the duty of tho clerk of tho (-(jurt at tho ooinmeu'-einont 
 of each week of Iho term, to write the uameof eueh p.>tit juroi-suminoned 
 andr otaiiied J'or that week on a separate ticket, and put the wliole into a 
 box or otlier i)lai'e for safe keei)inr>; ; and as often as it «hall be necessary 
 to impmel a jury, the ch»rk, sheriff, or coroner shall, in the presence of 
 the court, draw by chance twolv(^ names out of such box or other place, 
 which shall designate the twelve to be sworn on the jury, and in the 
 same manner for the seroMdJury, in their turn, as the court may order 
 and dire.'t. 
 
 .lURY COMMISSION. — APPOINTMENT OF JURY tJOMMISHION. — !',LECTIOX — 
 
 TEI!M OF OFFICE. 
 
 Be it enacted by the people of the State of Illinois, repre-ented in 
 the Greneral Assembly, that upon the petition of not less tha!i one thou- 
 sand electorb of any county in this State, praying' for. the M{)pointment of 
 a jury commission for such county, the judges of the several courts of 
 record of such county, or a, majority of them, m;iy, in their discretion, 
 cause the question of the appointment of such commission to be submitted 
 to the vote of the electors of said county, on Tviesday after the first Monday 
 of November. A. D. 188Y, on not less than 80 days' noti'C, prescribing the 
 form of ballot, and the time and jdace of su:h ele(?tion, and stating the 
 object thereof; said election to be conducted, returned and canvassed in 
 tho same manner and by the same officers jn-esoribed by law in ca?es of 
 general elections in such county ; and if it shall appear that a majority 
 of the votes cast upon this question at such elet^tion is in favor of a jury 
 commission in such county, then the said judges, or a majority of them, 
 may choose three competent and discreet electors, who shall not be by 
 law exempt or disqualified from serving as jurors, and M'ho shall be known 
 as jury commissioners. Of the first three so chosen one shall hold his 
 office for one year, one for two years and one for three years to be determ- 
 ined by lot, and every year thereafter one such officer shall be so chosen 
 for the term of three years. Each of said commissioners, before entering 
 upon the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe to an oath of office 
 before one of said judges and shall execute a bond to the people of the 
 State of Illinois in such sum and with such sureties as shall be required 
 by such judge, and be by him approved, conditioned for the faithful 
 discharge of his duties as such commissioner during his term of office. 
 
\\ 
 
 129 
 
 The majority of the judges of such county may remove either of such 
 commissioners assigning reasons therefor. 
 
 JURY LIST. 
 
 The said commissioners upon entering upon the duties of their office, 
 and each year thereafter, hhall prepare a list of all electors between the 
 ages of twenty one and sixty years, and possessing the necessary legal 
 qualifications for jury duty, to be known as the jury list. The name of 
 ♦ ach person on said \\>i shall be entered in a book or books to be kept for 
 that purpose and opposite said name be entered the age of said person, his 
 occnpation,if any, his place of residence, giving street a?id number, if any, 
 whether or not he is a householder, residing with his family, and whether 
 or not he is a freeholder. 
 
 DUTY OF COMMISSIONERS— MAY APPOINT DEPUTIES. 
 
 The said commissioners are empowered to provide a suitable room or 
 rooms in which to trausa^5t their business, and with the approval of tho 
 judges or a majority of the same, to appoint a clerk and the requisite 
 number of assistants. The clerk, if there be one, shall be on duty at the 
 room or rooms of said commissioners er.ch day during the sessions of the 
 court ; if there be no clerk, then one, at least, of said commissioners shall, 
 in like manner, be present, if so ordered by the court. The said commis- 
 sioners shall have power, with the approval of the judge or judges, to 
 appoint a coinpc^tent elector in each or any voting precinct or district, 
 who shall be known as depiity jury commissioner, and whose duty it 
 shall be to furnish i-aidjury commissioners, from time to time, as required, 
 a li>t of the qualified electors residing in said voting precinct or district, 
 and such other informations as may be required by said jury commis* 
 siouers. 
 
 SELECTING NAMES FOR JURORS,. 
 
 The said jury commissioners shall, from time to time, select from said 
 jury list the requisite number of names, which shall each be written on a 
 separate ticket, with the age, place of residence and occupation of each, 
 if known, the whole to be put into a box to be kept for that purpose, and 
 to be known as the jury box. In like manner they shall select the neces- 
 sary number of names from said jury list and from among those who are 
 freeholders and householders residing with their families, rhose names 
 shall each be written on a separate ticket, with the age, pla "^residence 
 and occnpation of each, if known, and put the whole into another box to 
 
180 
 
 be kept for that purpose and known as the grand jury box. Ihc jnroTs so 
 selected shall, as near as may be, be residentb of different parts of thu 
 county, and of different occupations ; and one or more of the judores of 
 said court shall ceitify to the clerk of the court the number of jurors 
 required at each term. The paid clerk shall then repair to the office of the 
 jury commissioners, and in the presence of at leaM tvfo of said commis- 
 sioners and also in presence of the clerk of said commissioners, if there be 
 one, proceed to draw at random from said Jury box, after the same shall 
 have been well shaken, the necessary number of unmes, and shnll certify 
 the same to the sheriff to be by him summoned according to law. If more 
 jurors are needed during said term the court shall so certify, and they 
 shall be drawn and summoned as above provided forthwith. 
 
 HOW OBAND JURY SELECTED— CHECKING OFF NAMES. 
 
 Whenever a grand jury shall be required by law, or by order of the 
 judge, they shall be drawn from the grand jury box and summoned in 
 like manner as provided in the last section. At the end of each term of 
 court the said jury commissioners shall ascertain the names of all persons 
 who have served and all who have been excused as jurors during said 
 term, and the names as such as have served shall then be checked ott 
 from the said jury list and shall not again be placed in either jury box 
 until all others on said list shall have served, or been found to be disqua- 
 lified or exempt, and the names of all who have been excused shall again 
 be placed in the jury box. 
 
 COMPENSATION. 
 
 The said jury commissioners, deputy jury commissioners, clerks and 
 assistants shall be paid for their services bv the county treasurer of the 
 several counties, such compensation as shall be fixed by the couuty board 
 upon warrants drawn by the clerk of the county board. The office 
 expenses of said jury commissioners shall be paid in like manner : prov- 
 ided, however, that the compensation of any such commissioner, deputy 
 or clerk shall not exceed the sum of $2,000 per annum. Provided, fur- 
 ther, that in counties of the first class, the compensation of said jury com' 
 missioners and deputies shall not exceed ten dollars each per annum and 
 in counties of the second class it shall not exceed fifty dollars each per 
 annum and in counties of the third class it shall not be less than five 
 hundred dollars each per annum. 
 
 OTHER PROVISIONS — INFAMOUS CRIMES. 
 
 Every person convictexJ of the crime of murder, rape, kidnapping, 
 
181 
 
 t.'l 
 
 wilfull and corrupt perjury or subornation of perjury, arson, burglary, 
 robbery, sodomy, or other ciime against nature, incest, larceny, forgery, 
 tiounterfeiting or bigamy, shall be deemed infamous, and shall forever 
 thereaiter be tendered incapable of holding any office of honor, trust or 
 profit, of voting at any election, or serving as a juror, unless ho is again 
 restored to such rights by the terms of a pardon for the offense, or other* 
 wise according to law. 
 
 Of jurors and others. 
 
 If two or more persons shall actually do an unlawful act, with force 
 or violence, against the person or property of any grand or petit juror, 
 witness or member of a posse comit at us, on account of any act done by 
 him, in obedience to a duty required of him by law, or to prevent the. 
 performance of any such "ct, the persons so offending shall be imprisoned 
 in the penitentiary not lesis (than) one year nor more than throe years. 
 
 Jury list — copy of indictment. 
 
 Every person charged with treason, murder or other felonious crime, 
 shall be furnished, previous to his arraignment, with a copy of the indict* 
 ment, and a list of the jurors and witnesses. In all other cases he shall 
 at his request or the request of his counsel, be furnished with a copy of 
 the iudictmeut and a list of the jurors and witnesses. 
 
 OFFICER SWORN TO ATTEND JURY. 
 
 When the jury retire to consider of their verdict in any criminal case, 
 a constable or other officer shall be sworn or affirmed to attend the jury 
 to some private and convenient place, and to the best of his ability keep 
 them together without meat or drink, (water excepted) unless by leave 
 of the court, until they shall have agreed upon their rerdict, nor to 
 suffer others to speak to them, and that when they shall have agreed upon 
 their verdict he will return then into court : Provided, in cases of 
 misdemeanor, only if the prosecutor for the people and the person on 
 trial, by himself or counsel, shall agree, which agreement shall be entered 
 upon the minutes of the court, to dispense with the attendance of an 
 officer upon the jury, or that the jury when they have agreed upon 
 their verdict may write and seal the same, and after delivering the same 
 to the clerk may separate, it shall be lawful for the court to carry 
 into effect any such agreement, and received any such verdict so 4eliver» 
 <e<l to the clerk as the lawful verdict of such jury. 
 
 l^ 
 
 k.,1 
 
 n 
 
U2 
 
 JURIES .TUDfJEd OF LAW AND FACT. 
 
 Jnries in all criminal oases shall be judges of the law and the fact. 
 
 PENALTIES DETERMINED RY JURY— PENITENTIARY. 
 
 In all oases where the punishment shall be the confinemeut in the 
 penitentiary, if the case is tried by a jury, the jury ^hall say in their ver- 
 dict for what time the offender shall be confined, and the court, in pro- 
 nouncing sentence, shall designate what portion of time the offender shall 
 be confined to solitary imprisonment, and what portion to hard labor. 
 
 FINE FIXED BY JURY. 
 
 When a fine is also to be inflicted, the jury shall fix the amount of 
 the fine. When either fine or cmprisonment in the penitentiary may be 
 inflicted, the jury shall determine which, and the time of confinemeut or 
 the amount of the fine. 
 
 Fees of jurors. 
 
 There shall b3 allowed and paid to grand and petit jurors for their 
 services in attending courts of record, including the county court, each the 
 sum of two dollars per day of necessary attendance at such courts as such 
 jurors, and also five cents per mile each away for necessary travel in going 
 to and returning from the same, to be paid out of the county treasury. 
 
the 
 
 vor- 
 
 pro- 
 
 shall 
 
 nt of 
 y be 
 lit or 
 
 their 
 hthe 
 such 
 joing 
 
 ■y-