472 OCTOBER TERM, ?907. Oplnion of t? Oo?t. Let it ? g?n?, in deference ? the ar?ment of tMt the s?tu? ?kes two cl?th? who ? ? of c?me ?d th? t?t ?y ? ,acc?there ? ce?y no ?c?nation wit? the c?, ?d the o?y quition ? whether, ? ?ew of the p? of the s?tu?, ? the c?- fication j?tifi?? In other wor?, whether the ? ?n- stitut?g the cl?s are M different ?latio? ? the p?p? of the ?w. ?t they are we tMnk is ob?o?; and, ? we Mve ?d, the ?w neither offe? or withhoh? su?t?ti? r?. It ?titu? one of i? i?tmmen?liti? of ? ?'q?fication? w?ch ?ot affect ?ent?lly the cMr? a?t or the delete of anx defendant. It ? the con?p?on of the State tMt a ?d ju? ? co?titu?t would ? more efficient ? the ?stration of j?tice tMn one not ? stitu?, but that there wo?d be cq?cting ? the ?ght of cMllenge shoed be extended ?yond the da? of the empanelment of the ju?. lye t?k it ? comment for the Sta? ? have so pro?d?. It ?11 ? o?rv? tMt the pro,sion of the s?tu? ? tMt no exception ? a juror "on accost of ?s citi?p or a? ? a?y o? ?l ? [i?li? ou?] sMU ? allow? afar he h? ?n sworn." It is hence con?nded tMt "the p?- ciple of the decision" under renew ? not h? ? the "? u?ry disqua]ifi?tions." The ? ?d, however, "whether the wor& of the st!tute, 'any other d?bihty,' ?clude the common law ?oun,ls of prejudi?, ?li? ?d the like, ?d, if so, what w?l(l ? the righ? and remedies of an ?c? pcmon who had had no oppo?unity to c?lle? a ?ven j?r upon these pc?onal grounds ? not involv? ? the fac? of the prc?nt case or in the line of reasoning upon which, in our judgment, its decision should be placed." In connection t? comment ?e L? v. Sa? o[ Nay J?s?, ?7 U.S. 67.
�
