Harvard Law Review. Published monthly, during the Academic Year, by Harvard Law Students. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $2.50 PER ANNUM 35 CENTS PER NUMBER. Editorial Board. Oliver Prescott, Jr., ... . Editor-in-Chief. Philip S. Abbot, Treasurer, Richmond O. Aulick, Albert S. Bard, Albert E. Hadlock, Norman Hapgood, Henry Hudson, Carleton Hunneman, J. Wright Hunt, Frederick B. Jacobs M. Day Kimball, James G. King, James M. Newell, Philip Wardner, Charles Warren, George E. Wright. Meeting of American Bar Association — Trial by Jury. — At the recent meeting of the American Bar Association, the well-worn sub- ject of trial by jury furnished one of the chief topics for discussion. Hon. Alfred Russell, of Michigan, in the annual address, favored, in civil cases, the abolition of the jury, while a majority committee report advo- cated the less radical change of allowing a verdict in such cases by three-fourths of the jury. The advisability of a total abolition of the jury, although there has been a constant pressure on the part of lawyers towards it for many years, seems very doubtful, but the suggestion of a majority verdict in civil cases more readily commends itself to our favor. The idea is by no means a new one among either English or American jurists. Such English authorities as Hallam, Christian, and Bentham have heartily condemned the rule of unanimity as a " preposterous relic of barbar- ism." Then a parliamentary commission of experts in 1830 reported in favor of a verdict by three-fourths of the jury if after twelve hours' deliberation it could not reach a unanimous verdict. Still later Lord Campbell introduced a bill to carry such a measure into effect. As yet, however, the rule in England stands unchanged. In America, too, many eminent jurists, Mr. Justice Miller among the number, have ex- pressed themselves in favor of the abolition of the requirement of unanimity. "The verdict of the jury under the unanimity rule." says this committee report of the Bar Association, " is often not gained by the justice of the case, but a compromise. Its effect is to prolong controversies, defeat jus- tice, produce discontent, and bring the administration of the law into con- tempt." Then following out the idea of the English commission report in 1830, the report goes on: " All the benefit of deliberation would be gained by requiring the jury to continue the consideration for several hours and permit then the verdict of a majority to be given. To demand more of the jury than is demanded of other tribunals seems without the support of sound reason." 1 1 Taken from newspaper report of the meeting.
