mode of trial require, that the matter to be decided should be reduced to some single and obvious point; while the litigations usual in Chancery frequently comprehend a long train of minute and independent particulars.
It is true, that the separation of the equity from the legal jurisdiction is peculiar to the English system of jurisprudence: which is the model that has been followed in several of the States. But it is equally true, that the trial by jury has been unknown in every case in which they have been united. And the separation is essential to the preservation of that institution in its pristine purity. The nature of a Court of equity will readily permit the extension of its jurisdiction to matters of law; but it is not a little to be suspected, that the attempt to extend the jurisdiction of the Courts of law to matters of equity will not only be unproductive of the advantages which may be derived from Courts of Chancery, on the plan upon which they are established in this State, but will tend gradually to change the nature of the Courts of law, and to undermine the trial by jury, by introducing questions too complicated for a decision in that mode.
These appeared to be conclusive reasons against incorporating the systems of all the States, in the formation of the National Judiciary, according to what may be conjectured to have been the intent of the Pennsylvania minority. Let us now examine, how far the proposition of Massachusetts is calculated to remedy the supposed defect.
It is in this form: "In civil actions between citizens of different States, every issue of fact, arising in actions at common law, may be tried by a jury if the parties, or either of them, request it."
This, at best, is a proposition confined to one description of causes; and the inference is fair, either that the
