FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177  
178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   >>   >|  
.[85] At common law, therefore, jurors selected by these officers were legally selected, so far as the principle now under discussion is concerned; that is, they were not selected by any officer who was dependent on the government. But in the year 1315, one hundred years after Magna Carta, the choice of sheriffs was taken from the people, and it was enacted: "That the sheriffs shall henceforth be assigned by the chancellor, treasurer, barons of the exchequer, and by the justices. And in the absence of the chancellor, by the treasurer, barons and justices."--_9 Edward II._, st. 2. (1315.) These officers, who appointed the sheriffs, were themselves appointed by the king, and held their offices during his pleasure. Their appointment of sheriffs was, therefore, equivalent to an appointment by the king himself. And the sheriffs, thus appointed, held their offices only during the pleasure of the king, and were of course mere tools of the king; and their selection of jurors was really a selection by the king himself. In this manner the king usurped the selection of the jurors who were to sit in judgment upon his own laws. Here, then, was another usurpation, by which the common law trial by jury was destroyed, so far as related to the county courts, in which the sheriffs presided, and which were the most important courts of the kingdom. From this cause alone, if there were no other, there has not been a legal jury in a _county_ court in England, for more than five hundred years. In nearly or quite all the States of the United States the juries are illegal, for one or the other of the same reasons that make the juries in England illegal. In order that the juries in the United States may be legal--that is, in accordance with the principles of the common law--it is necessary that every adult male member of the state should have his name in the jury box, or be eligible as a juror. Yet this is the case in hardly a single state. In New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi, the jurors are required to be _freeholders_. But this requirement is illegal, for the reason that the term _freeholder_, in this country, has no meaning analogous to the meaning it had in the ancient common law. In Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana, and Alabama, jurors are required to be "freeholders or householders." Each of these requirements is illegal. In Florida, they are required to be "householders." In Con
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177  
178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

sheriffs

 

jurors

 

illegal

 

common

 
selected
 
selection
 

appointed

 

required

 

States

 

juries


treasurer

 
barons
 

chancellor

 

England

 
United
 

courts

 
county
 
offices
 
pleasure
 

appointment


justices

 

hundred

 
householders
 

officers

 

freeholders

 
meaning
 

single

 

Alabama

 
Indiana
 
Missouri

reasons
 

Arkansas

 
Tennessee
 
Carolina
 

Maryland

 

Florida

 

requirements

 

eligible

 
country
 

reason


requirement

 
freeholder
 

Mississippi

 

member

 

ancient

 

accordance

 

analogous

 

principles

 

Jersey

 

manner