, outward and
inward; of belief, of knowledge, of money, of food."

To this somber picture of American "prosperity" in the nineteenth century
nothing of worth can be added by the most inspired artist. Let us simply
inscribe upon the gloomy canvas the memorable words of an illustrious poet
of the period:

That country speeds to an untoward fate,
Where men are trivial and gold is great.

One of the most "sacred" rights of the ancient American was the trial of
an accused person by "a jury of his peers." This, in America, was a right
secured to him by a written constitution. It was almost universally
believed to have had its origin in Magna Carta, a famous document which
certain rebellious noblemen of another country had compelled their
sovereign to sign under a threat of death. That celebrated "bill of
rights" has not all come down to us, but researches of the learned have
made it certain that it contained no mention of trial by jury, which,
indeed, was unknown to its authors. The words _judicium parium_ meant to
them something entirely different--the judgment of the entire community of
freemen. The words and the practice they represented antedated Magna Carta
by many centuries and were common to the Franks and other Germanic
nations, amongst whom a trial "jury" consisted of persons having a
knowledge of the matter to be determined--persons who in later times were
called "witnesses" and rigorously excluded from the seats of judgment.

It is difficult to conceive a more clumsy and ineffective machinery for
ascertaining truth and doing justice than a jury of twelve men of the
average intelligence, even among ourselves. What, then, must this device
have been among the half-civilized tribes of the Connected States of
America! Nay, the case is worse than that, for it was the practice to
prevent men of even the average intelligence from serving as jurors.
Jurors had to be residents of the locality of the crime charged, and every
crime was made a matter of public notoriety long before the accused was
brought to trial; yet, as a rule, he who had read or talked about the
trial was held disqualified to serve. This in a country where, when a man
who could read was not reading about local crimes he was talking about
them, or if doing neither was doing something worse!

To the twelve men so chosen the opposing lawyers addressed their
disingenuous pleas and for their consideration the witnesses presented
their carefully rehears