se.

Nevertheless there is a possibly sound reason for obtaining such
information. Given a man's condition in life, his habits, his
occupation, his church, his associations, his politics, and given on
the other hand a certain state of facts, it is nearly ascertainable
how he is going to decide those facts. If a man has always been a rent
payer and has probably had continued trouble with his landlord about
repairs and a feeling of resentment at the regular recurrence of rent
day, is it not natural that he is going to be somewhat prejudiced
against a landlord in a dispute between landlord and tenant? or on the
other hand can a man who is one of the unfortunate owners of real
estate, and who having paid taxes, interest, insurance, repairs for
removal of tenement house violations, and with frequent vacancies,
really be absolutely just? If a juryman is a Jew, a Catholic, or a
Baptist, there will probably be an innate sympathy for his
co-religionist. The law does not recognize this unless the juryman is
honest enough to confess a prejudice. The soundness of the Anglo-Saxon
jury system is based on the theory that there is not one juryman but
that there are twelve and that among twelve there will be an average
between the landlord and the rent payer, between the Baptist and the
Catholic.

The counsel ordinarily selects the jury with observation and common
sense as his sole guide. The customary question asked jurymen,
whether, given such and such a state of facts, "Do you think you could
render a fair and impartial verdict?" is manifestly absurd to the
juryman. Every man believes himself to be perfectly honest and just.
It takes a strong character to say, "I couldn't be fair." As a matter
of fact such a man ought to be kept on the jury rather than let go. As
a juryman once said to a lawyer after the case: "Why did you excuse
me when I said I knew the other lawyer? You wasted your challenge; he
wouldn't have let me stay. I knew him too well."

The extent to which the examination of the fitness of jurors may go is
in the discretion of the court. The two extremes are represented by
the methods in the English courts where the judge exercises close
supervision over every question in the selection of the jury in what
would be considered in America an arbitrary and unjustifiable manner,
and the extreme liberality at criminal trials in this country. The
difference in time is often between that of a few minutes and a few
weeks.

Na