be a new trial. During the trial the judge decides all points of law that may arise. Either attorney may make objections to the court's decisions, and the side losing the case may demand a new trial on the basis of these exceptions. In case a fair trial cannot be secured in a certain district or before a certain court, the trial may be transferred to another court. Trial of a Civil Case. The trial of a civil case differs in many respects from a criminal trial, and the procedure is not the same in all the states. In criminal cases the state may act as prosecutor, but in civil cases the injured party, or plaintiff, must begin proceedings. As a rule, the first step is for the plaintiff to have a summons and complaint served upon the defendant. The complaint is a statement of the alleged wrong. The summons is an order from the court calling upon the defendant to appear and answer the complaint before a stated time, or suffer penalty for failure to appear. The defendant may then serve an answer upon the plaintiff's attorney, which may deny the facts or admit. them and claim that they constitute no legal wrong. Additional replies and answers may be necessary in order to determine questions of dispute. The case then proceeds as in a criminal case. In civil cases juries are often unnecessary, the court deciding on matters of facts as well as of law. A civil case is concluded by the entering of judgment against the defendant, if the plaintiff wins the case. Entering judgment, which is the delivering of the decision to the county clerk, may be followed by an execution, which is an order to the sheriff giving him authority to seize and sell the property of the defendant in order to pay the plain tiff the amount of the judgment. In many states household goods cannot be legally seized. Criticism of the Jury System. -The jury system, though it has been long regarded as one of the greatest privileges of a free people, has not been without severe criticism. Every one knows how difficult it is, at least in the large cities, to secure a jury of even fair intelligence. Most persons who are best suited for jury service use every possible means to escape the burden; on the other hand, the ignorant and thriftless rather enjoy jury service. The unsatisfactory nature of ordinary juries is acknowledged by the fact that in some courts a struck jury may be secured. This is done by the county clerk, or some similar officer, selecting a list of forty-eight men from which defendant and plaintiff are each permitted to strike off twelve names, and from the remaining twenty-four a trial jury is selected. It is further objected to the system that juries, even though fairly intelligent, cannot properly decide upon the evidence. Efforts are frequently made to give evidence that cannot convict the prisoner. Though the attorney knows the court will rule it out, nevertheless it has influence upon the jury. Many juries have been influenced more by sympathy than by facts; attorneys know that a widow, especially if she be beautiful, has a case against a corporation practically won if it goes to the jury. A popular writer sums up the objection to the jury system as follows: "It may be safely given as the almost unanimous opinion of Bench and Bar that there is no other system of trials now in use that is subject to as much delay, inconvenience, vexation, expense, and uncertainty as the jury system. Although it has been claimed as one of the chief ornaments of the common law, the common law manifested its want of confidence in it by sending a large class of cases - the most complicated ones, and often those involving large amounts to auditors; by making the admission of the least fragment of incompetent testimony ground for setting a verdict aside; and by giving to its judges power to annul verdicts if, in their opinion, contrary to law, contrary to evidence, founded on mistake, passion, or prejudice, or even if they think the damages awarded exorbitant."1 Though much may be said against the jury system, more may be said in its favor. To abolish trial by jury would be to give to judges decision as to facts as well as to the law. Lawyers and judges are influenced by the technicalities of the law; the jury system greatly lessens the tendency toward deciding questions by mere technicalities. Fortunately, corrupt judges are rare, but the opportunities of such judges, if there were no juries, would be vastly greater than at present. The educational advantages of the jury system are not to be lightly regarded. To be a member of a jury is of real educational value to any man. If good citizens would recognize jury service as a part of their duty toward the state, most of the objections to the jury system would disappear. "Trial by jury has deserved much of the praise bestowed upon it. It was a great advance upon trial by ordeal and trial by battle, which it superseded. It accomplished untold good in times when judges were the servile tools of royal power. It has been called the palladium of our liberty, and not seldom the independence and fearlessness 1 Dole, "Talks About Law," p. 77. of juries presented an impassable barrier to the attempts of the crown upon the liberties of the subject. Indeed, had it not been for the trial by jury we should not be the free people that we now are; and, as human nature is the same in all ages and everywhere, as history repeats itself in substance if not in form, as enormously rich individuals and corporations are fast becoming the successors to monarchs in power, it is not at all clear that this cumbersome, expensive, and uncertain method of trial can ever be safely dispensed with, and, with proper care in the selection of jurymen, it might perhaps be made a means of doing as much justice, and as little injustice, as is consistent with human imperfections."1 QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT 1. Describe the jurisdiction of three grades of state courts. 2. How may judges be removed from office? 3. Give an account of compurgation and trial by ordeal. 4. What is a crime? What is a civil case? 5. Describe a criminal trial. 6. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury. 7. What is the difference between a sin and a crime? Is a crime always a sin? 'Dole, "Talks About Law," p. 83. CHAPTER IX ELECTIONS AND PARTY MACHINERY Suffrage. With one exception, to be noted hereafter, the qualifications of voters are left to the decision of the state governments. In colonial days the right to vote, called the right of suffrage in most colonies, was much restricted. After the Revolution, religious qualifications gradually disappeared, and property qualifications were, in the main, soon removed. This was at first due to a growth of democracy, followed by a competition of parties for the "foreign vote." The theory of representative government does not require that all members of the community shall vote. Minors, criminals, and the insane are denied the suffrage in every state. In most states women, and paupers in institutions, cannot vote. The usual requirements for voters are as follows: 1. Age requirement. All states require that a voter shall be twenty-one years of age. 2. Residence requirement. Usually a residence within the state for six months or a year is required. A shorter term of residence is commonly required in the county and in the election district. United States citizenship is required in most states, though in several a foreigner who has declared his intention to become a citizen may vote. No man may vote in two places, unlike England, where a man may vote wherever he has the qualifications. 3. Economic qualification. In the states of Arkansas, ΙΟΙ |