the professional juror to control a few votes, and he could not afford to have that juror against him.

I want to amend that part of the report which provides that the jury commission shall be composed of the county court clerk, the trustee, and perhaps the circuit court clerk. I know just as well as I know any thing that that means that the squires from the different districts will appoint the jurors. The circuit court clerk and the county court clerk need the help of the people to get elected, and they have to stand in with the squires, who are great people sometimes. I offer this as an amendment. Let the commission be composed of the chancellor of the division, the judge of the circuit, and the county judge or chairman, and let each of them select twenty names and turn them over in the hat and provide that the number necessary to form the venire shall be drawn from the hat by a boy under the age of fourteen years.

J. H. Watkins.-There is a motion before the house, and I do not think this is amendatory to that motion.

M. M. Hope. That is my motion, and I should like to hear from gentlemen on the subject, for I feel a deep interest in the matter. My suggestion is that the chancellor of the division, the judge of the circuit court, and the county judge or chairman shall be appointed a commission to draw the jurors, twenty names by each, to be placed in the hat, from which the required number shall be drawn by a boy under fourteen years of age.

Albert D. Marks.-There was a committee appointed at the last meeting of the Association to draft a bill and present it to the General Assembly, and in some measure correct the evils of the jury-system that had been pointed out. Mr. Anderson, of Nashville, and myself were appointed on that committee, and had the co-operation of our circuit judge, Judge McAlister, who feels a very deep interest in the subject of jury reform. We, realizing that it would be almost impossible to accomplish any thing in the way of general reform, prepared a bill applying only to the counties of Davidson and Shelby, which provided for a jury commission to be composed of certain officers of the county. This bill was introduced into the Legislature and passed in the Senate, and passed two readings in the House, and was referred to the Judiciary Committee. We secured a favor

able report from this committee, and had every reason to believe that if we could get the bill before the House it would pass. The Legislature was then nearing the end of the session, and business was very much crowded. Before we could get the Judiciary Committee to act upon the bill, and have it presented to the House, it was too late to secure action. We have every reason to believe that so far as the counties of Davidson and Shelby were concerned they narrowly escaped securing the relief suggested in one of the recommendations of this Association. I make this statement as a report from that committee. So you see the Legislature is not entirely opposed to bettering the system we have.

I ex

J. M. Greer.-There are two other recommendations. pect Hamilton and Knox had rather have the law than we. In Shelby, the choosing of jurors by the county court has fallen into innocuous desuetude. Our county court makes no such selection. This duty falls upon the trial judge, circuit, criminal, or chancery. The result is that at the beginning of each of the terms of those courts we find a number of worthy and deserving men upon the juries. In the criminal court, for example, after the session of four months, which the court usually holds, if the juror has merited the approval of the judge, and the judge sees no reason for turning him off, he may be continued for a similar period, and then another. These judges have the selection in their hands almost arbitrarily. They may choose whom they please, and let them serve as long as they please. We have no statutory provision saying that at the end of such service they shall not serve any more. The two weeks' term of service recommended by the committee would fail to bring about that familiarity between the trial judge and the jury which it is perhaps very well should not exist. In the country circuits I have noticed that the jury, as a rule, are not personal acquaintances of the judge, and very little passes between them. except in an official way. Certainly we know that is wise and well, for our Supreme Court has gone so far as to make a private conversation between the judge and jury during the progress of the trial a ground for reversal. I am a friend of the professional juror. I have known him well. We have worked together. When he came into court he delayed no time, and

understood the definition of a "reasonable doubt" better than the judge did; never permitted the delay of justice because of a reasonable doubt; did not seem to have any kind of doubt; was prompt and quick; knew the dinner-hour and knew the meeting-hour of the court; and while he is valuable to the judge he does not seem to meet with the approval of the counsel. I do not mean that all are that way. Judge Estes selects his jury from those who are not professional jurors.

J. M. Bright.—I rise to a point of order, and out of respect to the motion of Chancellor Estes to have this report printed and laid on the table, I suggest that, until that motion is decided, the gentleman's discussion is out of order.

J. M. Greer. I was afraid on the threshold to say that I was going to oppose Judge Estes' motion, but that is what I have been doing all this time.

J M. Bright. I suggest to my friend that he accept an amendment that the report shall not only be printed but that it be laid upon the table as unfinished business, to be called up at the next meeting of the Bar Association.

B. M. Estes. That is the proper shape. I accept the amend

ment.

Judge Estes' motion was defeated.

The report was taken up by sections, 1 and 2 being first considered together.

M. M. Hope.-I offer an amendment that the chancellor of the division, the judge of the circuit court, and the county judge or chairman shall be a committee, each of whom shall select twenty names, those names to be placed in a hat or box, and at some convenient time before the meeting of the court, the required number of names shall be drawn out by a boy under the age of fourteen years, in the presence of three men-namely, the circuit court clerk, the county court clerk, and the trustee. The names so selected shall be those of the jurors to serve at the approaching term of court.

M. M. Neil. I like the amendment of Mr. Hope better than I do the report of the committee, for the reason that I do not see where the circuit court clerk, the county court clerk, and the trustee, themselves dependent upon the popular vote, are much better than the county court. Mr. Hope's amendment

takes us a step higher, and further removed from these influ

ences.

J. M. Greer. The difficulty about that as a general law is, that while it might work admirably in circuits where there are only one or two counties, it would be extremely awkward and inconvenient for judges who have in their circuits and divisions as many as ten or eleven or twelve counties, to meet in each county to draw the names of twenty men as proposed. It would work well in Davidson, Shelby, Knox, and Hamilton, where the judges have only one or two counties and are residents, meeting each other frequently. Again, I do not think Mr. Hope grasps the idea presented in the report of the committee. The circuit clerk, trustee, and county chairman do not select the jury of whose evils he complains, but they select twenty-five names out of each one hundred qualified voters in each civil district in the county, and deposit these names in a box, from which the circuit court clerk, before the meeting of the court, draws a venire of twenty-five, not by selection but blindly. It would be impossible in that event for the county court to influence the circuit court clerk. It is true that the men who put the names in the box might put in the names of, twenty-five of their personal friends, but when the jury is made up it would not be possible for the circuit court clerk to pick the jury.

M. M. Hope.-I take it that it is not necessary that the chancellor shall be in the county. He can select the names and mail them to the clerk and master, and have them turned over properly to whoever draws the names. The judge says this will do very well for Shelby and Hamilton. I am specially interested in Shelby and Hamilton; and if Hamilton can help Shelby I want her to do it, and if Shelby can help Hamilton I want that done also.

W. L. Frierson.-I move we concur in the recommendation of the committee.

J. M. Dickinson.-I shall not say much on that motion. I am opposed, however, to the report of the committee. I am opposed to giving trustees and clerks any more power than they have. They virtually control our county as it is, and I want to confine them to the functions of their office, and not give them any control of the jury. I think a better plan is something like

that which I am told exists in Kentucky. Into a box are put the names of all the citizens of the county who are qualified to do jury-duty, and from that are drawn the different venires when needed. If a juror is not needed, his name may be thrown back in the box, where it may be drawn again. The commission discharges its duty when it puts the names in the box. Their services will not be needed again for two or three years, and in that way they could exercise but little control over the selection of the juries. One of the difficulties to having good juries in the cities is that the terms of the court are so long that good men do not like to go there and stay. You have to find a man who has nothing to do to get him to stay there. Any man who has business or employment will not sit on the jury. He will work upon the sympathies of the court and get excused. If juries were compelled to sit only a week, and once in every four or five years, we would get the best men to discharge the duties of that position. Judges would be more strict in enforcing the rule, and less liberal in granting excuses. In this way you take it out of the power of judges, or sheriffs, or commissioners to control juries, and distribute the burden of serving throughout the county. In the country courts I presume the juries do not sit much over a week, and in those cases the provision requiring that they be discharged at the end of each week would not be necessary. If the law should provide that no juryman should serve longer than a week, except where a case continues longer, and that no juryman should be called again until the list of names in the county had been gone. through with, we would get good juries, and in that way it would be impossible for the judge, the commissioners, or any other of the officers, to exercise any influence on the choice. I do not offer this as an amendment, because I have not it sufficiently in my mind to give details; but I am opposed to the plan recommended by the committee, because it would give too much power to the county officers.

M. M. Hope.-Any thing on the face of the earth to get out of the county court and away from officers that court suggests. I am not strongly determined in my ideas about the matter, but I want to get it away from the county court.

W. B. Reese. One objection I have to the Kentucky plan,