No person can pass from the praise of trial by jury delivered by Sir William Blackstone, and recorded in the Federalist, Elliott's debates and the other discussions at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, to the criticism found in the discussion of the last ten or fifteen years, without a fixed impression that a most serious change has taken place in a vital function of government. (World's Work, vol. 13, 8221; Arena, vol. 33, 510; Harper's Weekly, vol. 49, 1005; Century, vol. 59, 802; 29, Munsey, 723; 77 Nation, 106; 5 International, 1; 87 Nation, 163; 62 Gentlemen's Magazine, n. s., 189;22 Arena, 312; 98 Spectator, 890; 3 Forum, 102; 9 Forum 309; vol. 1, Report of American Bar Association, 1906, 450; Report of American Bar Association 1905, 15 to 32; Report of Universal Congress of Lawyers and Jurists 1904; 96; 17 Law Quarterly Review, 171, Address of James Bryce, American Bar Association, 1907).

Intermingled with criticism are comments of a more favorable character from men of eminent qualifications, both of equipment and experience. (Report of Universal Congress of Lawyers and Jurists, 1904, p. 105; Address of Joseph Choate before the American Bar Association in 1898).

Reading the criticisms that have been made creates a firm conviction that there has been much of error and wrong in trial by jury.

So great has this been that some, among them even a distinguished ex-attorney-general of the United States have called for its abolition.

These criticisms most generally pertain to trials in civil cases though some of the most serious instances given of miscarriage of justice were in criminal cases.