trative disputes is many times so peculiar that ordinary judges would not be qualified to determine the issue. When a government officer acting in his official capacity is a party to a dispute, he cannot, according to this theory, be treated like an ordinary individual, for if he be, the work of government is liable to be obstructed.

The objection to this system of administrative courts is that it tends to destroy the safeguard of the citizen against the tyranny of the administrative officials. In these special courts there is a tendency to emphasize the privileges of the administrative officials over the rights of the individual citizen. England and the United States have never introduced such courts. In both countries the officials of government (except the King, and the President during his term of office) are subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.

Organization of Judiciary Singly or in Small Groups.Another notable feature of the organization of the judiciary for the performance of its work is that in all states the judges act, according to the nature and gravity of the cases under consideration or according to the courts in which they serve, either singly or in separate bodies relatively small in number. The judicial powers are not centralized under a single head, as are the executive powers, nor are they exercised by all the members of the judiciary in joint session, as are the legislative powers. A single judge may conduct cases in the lower courts, two or three judges together may conduct a court of a higher grade (as the circuit court of appeals in the United States), and a small body of judges may sit together in the highest court (as do the justices in the Supreme Court of the United States). The whole system is unified by the position of the supreme court at the top of the pyramid, but in all ordinary procedure the courts act separately and independently.

The Jury System.-A feature in the division of labor for the judiciary in England and the United States is the existence of the jury system. The right of trial by jury has come to be practically a most important element in the system in these

two states, to such a degree that it has been wittily said that the ultimate aim of the English constitution is to get twelve good men into a box.

A jury is a body of laymen summoned and sworn to inquire into the truth as to questions of fact raised in legal proceedings, whether criminal or civil. The jury and the judge act together in the case, the jury acting on the one hand as an assistant to the judge and on the other as a check on the judge. The function of the jury is the determination of matters of fact; the function of the judge is to apply the law to the state of facts determined by the jury. In consequence, the jury is a check upon the judge in whose hands too much power might be placed in case he were charged with the determination of questions of both law and fact. On the other hand, it is a very wise provision to leave the determination of the law, which in itself is a highly technical subject, in the hands of a man presumably well qualified for such duty. It is to be noted that in the United States under the provisions of Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3, of the Constitution, the trial of all crimes, except in the cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, etc. The phrase "trial of crimes" has reference to offenses against the United States only and such offenses must be defined by federal statutes before they can be tried in the federal courts because no common law offence exists against the United States. The jury which the Constitution requires for the trial of crimes is a body of 12 impartial men chosen from the district where the violation of the law has occurred and all of whom must concur in the guilt of the accused before he can be convicted. In the United States this rule applies only to federal cases and it is not improper for the states to provide for jury greater or less than twelve for the trial of offenses against the state in contradistinction to the federal law, nor is it improper to allow a conviction by the vote of a majority. As a matter of fact in certain western states in our country a majority of the jury can bring in a finding in a certain class of cases, in other classes of cases two-thirds must agree, in more serious cases three

fourths must agree and in the most serious cases ten out of twelve must agree. This progressive principle, however, is not well received in the older and more conservative states where the idea that the trial by jury should consist of twelve men in which convictions can be had only on a unanimous verdict still maintains.

As stated above the Constitution requires all crimes against the United States to be tried before a jury. The requirements of a jury to-day, however, are practically the same as the requirements of centuries ago, and it is becoming more and more a question whether the trial by jury should not be abolished and more or less drastic reforms made in the methods of procedure. At present the system is hedged about by straight-laced demands and restrictions, and burdened by arbitrary antiquated forms. It is becoming more and more difficult to impanel a full jury of men who have education, experience and intelligence to permit them properly to decide even simple questions. One requirement for a juryman is that he shall have no previously formed opinion of the case before the court; in these days of almost universal education and rapid dissemination of knowledge this seems an absurdity that is in itself sufficient to condemn the present jury system.

Jurisdiction of State Courts. Federal and Commonwealth Courts in the United States.-In states where the judicial system is organized wholly as a unit in the organization of government, as in France and England, all the courts are state courts; in the United States, however, two separate and distinct systems of courts exist: the courts of the United States (the various grades of which have been outlined) and the courts of the separate commonwealths of the United States. In this country the courts of the various commonwealths handle the larger proportion both of civil and criminal cases. In general, the federal courts deal with cases in which the interests involved either concern the United States as a whole or are such as could not properly be handled by the separate commonwealth courts. Thus cases of the following

character would fall within the jurisdiction of the federal courts:

(1) To all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made or to be made under their authority.

(2) To all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.

(3) To all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. (4) To controversies to which the United States shall be a party.

(5) To controversies between two or more states.

(6) To controversies between a state and citizens of another state.

(7) To controversies between citizens of different states. (8) To controversies between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants from different states.

(9) To controversies between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Powers and Functions of the Judiciary in Matters Affecting Legislation

In the due exercise of its functions and powers the judiciary' in all states is called upon at times to make decisions which practically create new law. In England, for example, the legislative body is, as we have emphasized, the supreme lawmaking body of the state, but the judicial body is called upon in many cases to interpret and apply the laws enacted by that supreme body. The interpretations and applications made by the judiciary establish precedents and themselves become part of the fundamental law of the state. This function is not one expressly granted by the constitution, but one which is a practical necessity demanded by varying social and economic conditions in all states. As in England, so in other countries, the courts have gradually built up a very considerable amount of what is known as "judge-made" law.

Notable Power of the Supreme Court in United States.In this connection the Supreme Court of the United States has exercised very notable and unusual powers; namely, (1) the power to set aside and declare to be without force any enactment of the federal legislative body which in the opinion of the court is not in accord with the constitution, and (2) the power to interpret authoritatively the language of the constitution. These powers are exercised on the ground that the constitution is the fundamental law of the state and that the judicial power is expressly extended by the terms of the constitution "to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, etc." (U. S. Const., Art. III, Section 2). The right of the Supreme Court to exercise these powers has been acknowledged since early in the history of the country.

Importance and Result of this Power in the United States. -The importance of these powers in the hands of the judiciary. upon the character of the government and the position of the judiciary is beyond estimation. In England, Parliament is supreme: the courts may declare certain acts unwarranted under the existing law, but Parliament may remedy this by the passage of a new law in the ordinary processes of legislation. In the United States, however, the rôle of guardian of the constitution has been intrusted to the Supreme Court: the legislature has not the power of passing on the legality of its own acts, as it has in England; nor do the executive head and the legislature have it in their power to put in force acts of doubtful constitutionality. The Supreme Court has been unsparing in its use of these powers, having thus defeated over twenty acts of Congress. The Supreme Court, as a result, occupies a position of dignity and respect that the judiciary occupies in no other country in the world. It is the steadying influence in government, the ultimate authority withstanding any attempts by the legislative body to use its great power in a tyrannical way, the body whose judgments are most respected by public opinion throughout the state.