Page:Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1st ed, 1833, vol III).djvu/640

§ 1761.

This view of the matter, at any rate, puts it out of all doubt, that the supposed abolition of the trial by jury, by the operation of this provision, is fallacious and untrue. The legislature of the United States would certainly have full power to provide, that in appeals to the Supreme Court there should be no re-examination of facts, where they had been tried in the original causes by juries. This would certainly be an authorized exception; but if, for the reason already intimated, it should be thought too extensive, it might be qualified with a limitation to such causes only, as are determinable at common law in that mode of trial.^[1]

§ 1762. These views, however reasonable they may seem to considerate minds, did not wholly satisfy the popular opinion; and as the objection had a vast influence upon public opinion, and amendments were proposed by various state conventions on this subject, congress at its first session, under the guidance of the friends of the constitution, proposed an amendment, which was ratified by the 'people, and is now incorporated into the constitution. It is in these words.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of a trial by jury shall be preserved. And no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This amendment completely struck down the objection; and has secured the right of a trial by jury, in civil cases, in the fullest latitude of the common law.^[2] Like the other amendments, proposed by the same congress, it was coldly received by the enemies of the

---

1. The Federalist, No. 81. See also The Federalist, No. 83.
2. See 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 351; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 135; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Peters's R. 492, 525.