The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1885-06-20

eign pauper or enlightened Amer
lean, his right to serve on a jury
can not be impeached.
Some will say no doubt, that
this fact of a jury being selected
from the working classes, makes
the juror more capable to judge of
the every day business transactions
of business men. Now is this true ?
The wording of contract and its
terms are such that it does not re-
quire any special knowledge of the
subject matter, but it does require
a knowledge of the nature of a con
tract. Suppose A and B make
contract, A is merchant and B is
farmer. Now in case of a dispute
arising in regard TO t}sss contract it
would be necessary, if we adhere
to this rule, to have a jury com
posed entirely of merchants and
farmers and an equal number of
each so that one party would not
have the advantage of the other
Would this jury ever decide a case ?
The answer is as plain as can be;
unless the points made on the one
side were very strong, or unless
there was some very apparent
weakness in one party's case, it
would not. If the case is at all
doubtful, if both parties have some
good evidence, the six merchants
will hold for the merchant and the
six farmers will as obstinately hold
for the farmer as long as they are
on the panel. The reason of this
is very evident for one class of citi-
zens will do what they can to help
each other. while another will do
exactly the same thing. They do
this partly from human nature and
partly from self protection. They
think if they allow certain customs
of their particular calling to be over
ruled in this case there will be
nothing to establish them in their
own if they themselves should be
at issue upon this point. A peril
nent illustration of this is in the
tan-bark traffic. A cord of
wood contains one hundred and
twenty eight cubic feet, but the
tan-bark buyers, to make allow
ance for shrinkage, crevices, etc,
are accustomed to consider one
hundred and sixty feet cord. This
is a constant source of misunder-
standing between the bark "peeler'
and the bark buyer" These of
course are taken before a magis-
trate's jury to settle. If the jury,
is composed of bark buyers one
hundred and Hty feet is a cord, if
of bark peelers" one hundred and
twenty eight feet is the number
required to constitute that quantity.
Several instances of this have hap
pened within the immediate obser-
walton OF the writer, and it is fact
patent to all who may approach
them upon the subject, that the
buyer and the producer of tan bark
are at everlasting and universal is
sue upon this point. Many other
things could be named, but this
will serve the purpose for which it
was intended just as we'll. That
purpose was to show that between
the different trades and callings
there are certain customs upon
which these tradesmen are very
delicate, and that the ordinary
business man is no more fitted to
judge the affairs of others, and not
half as well fitted to Judge those in
which he might possibly be con
cerned as a judge. For unless he
happens to be engaged in the par
ticular business, he will not know
as much about it as the Judge; and
if he is a fellow craftsman of one of
the litigants, ten chances to one he
will be too prejudiced to be able to
give an impartial decision. The
judge from his long course of study
and judicial habits is better fitted
to grasp readily any information
which may be brought before him
and no man has greater opportuni-
ties than he Every kind of prop
erty corporal and incorporeal is
discussed in the evidence before
him constantly. Nothing escapes
the observation of the vigilant
judge. True he may not find out
enough about bonds to make him
a broker or enough about medicine
to make him a physician, but he
gets a general knowledge of both.
His knowledge of bonds will sur
pass that Of the physician and his
Judgment of the particular manner
in which patient is treated is far
superior to the brokers'.
There is another thing quite in
comprehensive to the impartial
oDoCiNCl dllu llldl ID llllS II IL
now and always has been the Gus.
tom to try all suits in equity before
judges alone. Yet there is not hall
as much complaint about the decis
ions of court of equity as there is
about those of court of law. II
seems highly inconsistent that a
man must boast of his right to have
a jury of his peers try his case when
perhaps hundred dollars or an
old horse is at stake, yet risk his
land, his home, his own wife to the
decision Of single judge. What
is there on earth more sacred thar
the marriage relation What suit
can be of more vital interest and
social Importance, than that, which
seeks to enter into the home ano
dissolve those bonds imposed, as
it were, by Heaven itself? Yet
suits for divorce are always brAght
in court of equity, and upon the
verdict of single Judge rests the
hannipacc of n homo and tho ,>rr