I. It is also true by the law of probability that the verdict of nine or ten is more likely

to be correct than that of a minority of three or two.

L. Refutation. The argument that unanimity inspires public confidence in the justice of the decision is not convincing. For

I. Experience proves that there is little public confidence left in the system as it stands.

Unanimity of Verdict ought not to be eliminated from the Jury System. Because

A. The theory of our law in regard to criminal justice would be destroyed. For

I. Every essential allegation made by the prose

cution must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to entitle the

government to a verdict. For

a. As long as one juryman disagrees there exists a reasonable doubt.

B. It secures a free and full discussion of the case by the jurymen. For

I. They must turn the question with the facts concerning it over and over in their pri

vate room until all do agree before they can fulfil the function of a jury.

C. The incompetency of some jurors makes unanimous verdicts all the more necessary. For

I. By the doctrine of chance and probability twelve are more likely to be right than nine, ten, or eleven. For

II. As long as the minority is given weight the "reasonable doubt" is represented.

D. The responsibility upon each member of the body would be lessened by giving up the requirement of unanimity.

E. There would be less public confidence in the justice of decisions if the unanimity requirement were abolished. For

I. A unanimous verdict is indisputable.

F. Refutation. The argument that all men are not constituted alike is irrelevant. For

I. Every member of a jury has the same facts to deal with and receives them under the same conditions.

II. No juryman can carry his religious or political prejudices with him without violating his solemn obligation.

Tests of Arguments for Consistency.

148. A third test of arguments arises from the natural demand for consistency. Inferences drawn by the same person from the same facts must harmonize with one another. Thus Burke in the following passage from the Speech on Conciliation makes an argument out of the inconsistency of his opponents when they declare both that the trade laws are worthless and that they must be preserved.

The more moderate among the opposers of parliamentary concession freely confess that they hope no good from taxation; but they apprehend the colonists have further views, and if this point were conceded, they would instantly attack the trade laws. These gentlemen are convinced that this was the intention from the beginning, and the quarrel of

the Americans with taxation was no more than a cloak and cover to this design. Such has been the language even of a gentleman of real moderation, and of a natural temper well adjusted to fair and equal government. I am, however, Sir, not a little surprised at this kind of discourse whenever I hear it; and I am the more surprised on account of the arguments which I constantly find in company with it, and which are often urged from the same mouths, and on the same day.

For instance, when we allege that it is against reason to tax a people under so many restraints in trade as the Americans, the Noble Lord in the Blue Ribbon shall tell you that the restraints on trade are futile and useless; of no advantage to us, and of no burthen to those on whom they are imposed; that the trade to America is not secured by the Acts of Navigation, but by the natural and irresistible advantage of a commercial preference.

Such is the merit of the trade laws in this posture of the debate. But when strong internal circumstances are urged against the taxes; when the scheme is dissected; when experience and the nature of things are brought to prove, and do prove, the utter impossibility of obtaining an effective revenue from the colonies; when these things are pressed, or rather press themselves, so as to drive the advocates of colony taxes to a clear admission of the futility of the scheme then, Sir, the sleeping trade laws revive from their trance; and this useless taxation is to be kept sacred, not for its own sake, but as a counter-guard and security of the laws of trade.

Then, Sir, you keep up revenue laws which are mischievous, in order to preserve trade laws that are useless. Such is the wisdom of our plan in both its members. They are separately given up as of no value; and yet one is always to be defended for the sake of the other.

149. Assignments on the Test for Consistency.

A. What inconsistency is charged in the following?

Protectionists get mixed on their own argument when they compare conditions in England and in Germany. If European labor is all that protectionists say it is, how can a protective tariff help it? From whom is it to be protected? What particular pauper labor will endanger Germany, Italy, France, or Russia if they remove their protective tariffs? What pauper labor is flooding England? To be sure English protectionists have raised a howl about German goods, but German labor happens just now to be in what passes for a prosperous condition; and this cannot be on account of the German tariff, since Italy and Russia have much higher protective tariffs, without being so benefited. May it not be because the German government has checked railroad monopoly almost entirely, and land monopoly to some extent ? The Public, 12: 584.

B. Is there any inconsistency in the following?

1. Saturday should be preserved as a school holiday.

For

A. All teachers need Saturday for rest and rec

reation.

B. All teachers need Saturday for attending institutes and for private study.

2. Free text-books should be provided in the schools. For

A. The system puts rich and poor on the same

basis.

B. Any one may continue to buy his own books, as now, if he likes.

3. Discovery Day should be a school holiday. For

A. It would enable us to show reverence for

Columbus.

B. It comes at the very time when the football games are more numerous than the dates available now.

C. Often the question method is used effectively in applying the test for inconsistency. Turn the following questions into the answers expected. Answer the questions in the way evidently not expected and then try to harmonize them.

Let me ask a few questions for categorical answers:— First: If all tariffs were abolished, is it true or not that the country would be flooded with foreign goods?

Second: If true, would the foreigners send these goods over free, or would they want to be paid for them?

Third: If they should want to be paid, would it not be necessary to perform labor of some kind in this country to produce wealth for export to pay for those goods ?

Fourth If the answer to the third question is "yes," does it not necessarily follow that the more goods imported, the more demand there must be for American labor to produce exports? If not, why not?

Fifth: If, on the other hand, the answer to the third question is "no," where is the wealth to come from to pay for the "flood" of foreign goods?

Sixth: If pay for the goods is not forthcoming, will not the "flood" cease?

Seventh: If it should not cease in spite of no pay, wouldn't the foreigners be either an unusually silly or an unusually generous lot? Wouldn't they be voluntarily enabling us to get all the things we need without working?

All the above questions following the first are framed on the supposition of an affirmative answer to the first one. Of course if this supposition is wrong, if any protectionist