*

what their servants are doing, or they will, like other masters, submit to imposition, rather than take the trouble of enquiring into the state of their affairs. No nation ever yet found any inconvenience from too close an inspection into the conduct of its officers; but many have been brought to ruin, and reduced to slavery, by suffering gradual imposition and abuses, which were imperceptible only because the means of publicity had not been secured. In modern times, the press is so powerful an engine to effect this, that the nation which neglects to employ it, in promulgating the operations of every department in government, can neither know, nor deserve the blessings of freedom. The important task of spreading this kind of information, ought not, therefore, to be left to the: chance of private exertion; it must be made a public duty; every one employed in the administration of justice, will then act under the conviction, that his official conduct and opinions will be discussed before a tribunal, in which he neither presides nor officiates. The effects of such a conviction may be easily imagined, and we may fairly conclude, that in proportion to its strength, will be the fidelity and diligence of those upon whom it operates.

By our constitution, the right of a trial by jury is secured to the accused, but it is not exclusively established. This, however, may be done by law, and there are so many strong reasons in its favour, that it has been thought proper to insert in the code, a precise declaration, that in all criminal prosecu

tions, the trial by jury is a privilege which cannot be renounced. Were it left entirely at the option of the accused, a desire to propitiate the favour of the judge, ignorance of his true interest, or the confusion incident to his situation, might induce him to wave the advantage of a trial by his country, and thus, by degrees, accustom the people to a spectacle they ought never to behold; a single man determining the fact, applying the law, and disposing, at his will, of the life, liberty, and reputa

tion of a citizen.

In proposing this change in our law, I may be permitted to make a few reflections, to shew its importance. The trial by jury formed no part of the jurisprudence of the different powers which governed Louisiana, prior to its last session. It was first introduced when the province became incorporated with the united states, as one of its territories. By the first act for effecting this union, the trial by jury was established in capital cases; and in all others, both civil and criminal, was left, as in all cases it is now, optional with the parties. In the second grade of government, it was provided, that the people should have the benefit of the trial by jury, but it was not declared the only mode of trial; and our state constitution has adopted it in criminal cases, nearly in the same words. This indifference in our constitutional compacts, to an institution of such vital importance, has had the most injurious consequences, which have been encreased by subsequent provisions. In civil cases, it is already banished from

our courts, or used only as an engine of delay, or as an awkward and oppressive vehicle for transmitting testimony, to be decided on by the su preme court. This degradation of the functions of jurors, in cases of property, certainly does not tend to render them respectable in cases affecting life and liberty. In criminal cases, the attorney-general, I believe, demands a trial by jury, as he has a right to do, in all serious cases, even where the accused is willing to wave it. But a prosecutor, less friendly to the institution, and a judge more desirous to encrease his powers, than the gentlemen who now fill those stations, could easily find means to make the jury as useless, as rarely employed, and as insignificant in a criminal court, as our laws have already made it in those of civil jurisdiction.

Those who advocate the present disposition of our law, say-admitting the trial by jury to be an advantage, the law does enough, when it gives the accused the option to avail himself of its benefits; he is the best judge whether it will be useful to him; and it would be unjust to direct him in so important a choice. This argument is specious, but not solid. There are reasons, and some have already been stated, to shew, that this option, in many cases, cannot be freely exercised. There is, moreover, another interest, besides that of the culprit, to be considered; if he be guilty, the state has an interest in his conviction; and whether guilty or innocent, it has a higher interest, that the fact should be fairly canvassed before judges inaccessible to influence, and unbiassed by any false

views of official duty. It has an interest in the character of its administration of justice, and a paramount duty to perform, in rendering it free from suspicion. It is not true, therefore, to say, that the laws do enough, when they give the choice (even supposing it could be made with deliberation) between a fair and impartial trial, and one that is liable to the strongest objections. They must do more, they must restrict that choice, so as not to suffer an ill-advised individual to degrade them into instruments of ruin, though it should be voluntarily inflicted; or of death, though that death should be suicide.

Another advantage of rendering this mode of trial obligatory is, that it diffuses the most valuable information among every rank of citizens; it is a school, of which every jury that is empanelled, is a separate class; where the dictates of the laws, and the consequences of disobedience to them, are practically taught. The frequent exercise of these important functions, moreover, gives a sense of dignity and self-respect, not only becoming to the character of a free citizen, but which adds to his private happiness. Neither party spirit, nor intrigue, nor power, can deprive him of this share in the administration of justice, though they can humble the pride of every other office, and vacate every other place. Every time he is called to act in this capacity, he must feel, that though perhaps placed in the humblest station, he is yet the guardian of the life, the liberty, and the reputation of his fellow-citizens, against injustice and oppression;

and that, while his plain understanding has been found the best refuge for innocence, his incorruptible integrity is pronounced a sure pledge that guilt will not escape. A state, whose most obscure citizens are thus individually elevated to perform these august functions; who are, alternately, the defenders of the injured, the dread of the guilty, the vigilant guardians of the constitution; without whose consent no punishment can be inflicted, no disgrace incurred; who can, by their voice, arrest the blow of oppression, and direct the hand of justice where to strike:-such a state can never sink into slavery, or easily submit to oppression. Corrupt rulers may pervert the constitution; ambitious demagogues may violate its precepts; foreign influence may control its operations; but while the people enjoy the trial by JURY, taken by lot from among themselves, they cannot cease to be free. The information it spreads; the sense of dignity and independence it inspires; the courage it creates, will always give them an energy of resistance, that can grapple with encroachment; and a renovating spirit that will make arbitrary power despair. The enemies of freedom know this; they know how admirable a vehicle it is, to convey the contagion of those liberal principles, which attack the vitals of their power, and they guard against its introduction with more care, than they would take to avoid pestilential disease. In countries where it already exists, they insidiously endeavour to innovate, because they dare not openly destroy; changes inconsistent with the spirit of the institution are introduced,