verdict falls to one side of the straight line of the law it is usually upon the side of the poorest adversary.

All stand equal before the law, whether they be rich or poor, high or low, weak or strong; but no system has yet been devised which will insure exact justice at all times between man and man.

We choose not between a perfect system and an imperfect one, but between an imperfect system and one more imperfect still. And if the scales of justice cannot be perfectly poised, the safety of society demands that they tip most easily toward the side of the weak.

Faith in trial by jury implies no reflection upon the integrity of the bench. We recall with pardonable pride the names of our illustrious judges whose genius and learning have given luster to our profession and whose purity and probity have crowned it with glory.

But they won their distinction in expounding the law and left the decision of the facts to those fresh from contact with the busy world.

If to the present duties of the judge we add those now discharged by the jury, is it not possible that the selection of a judge will be secured because of his known sympathies? Will not the standard be so lowered that we may see upon the bench an agent instead of an arbiter?

In what position will the suitor be who finds, when called before a biased tribunal, that he has neither peremptory challenge nor challenge for cause. No more fatal blow could be struck at our national welfare than to give occasion for the belief that in our courts a man's redress depends upon his ability to pay for it.

If the jury can guard the court room from the invasion of unfair influences it will be as valuable for what it prevents as for what it gives.

Time does not admit of extended reference to those faults in the system which give occasion for just criticism, faults which its friends are in duty bound to prune away from it. The requirement of an unanimous verdict causes many mistrials. In civil causes, where a decision follows the evidence, it is difficult to see why substantial justice would not be done by a majority, or, at most, a twothirds majority verdict; but we cannot abandon the old rule in criminal cases without trespassing on the sacred right of the accused to the benefit of every reasonable doubt; for a divided jury, in itself, raises a doubt as to his guilt. The law recently passed making it a misdemeanor for a man to ask for appointment as a juror, or for an attorney to seek a place for a friend, is a step in the right direction.

Between a partisan juror and a professional juror it is only a choice between evils. If to fill the panel with bystanders means to fill it with men standing by for the purpose of being called, we are ready for a law which will compel the sheriff to seek talesmen beyond the limits of the court house. Any change, the aim of which is to compel the selection of men of ordinary intelligence and approved integrity as jurors, will be acceptable to the people. But now that all men read the news, the information thus acquired should no longer render them incompetent for jury service. It is a premium upon ignorance which we cannot afford to pay. Instead of summoning a juryman for a whole term we should limit his service to one or two weeks. This would lighten the burden without impairing the principle. To that argument, however, which assumes

that business men can afford no time for jury service there can be but one answer, No government can long endure unless its citizens are willing to make some sacrifice for its existence.

In this, our land, we are called upon to give but little in return for the advantages which we receive. Shall we give that little grudgingly? Our definition of patriotism is often too narrow.

Shall the lover of his country measure his loyalty only by his service as a soldier? No! Patriotism calls for the faithful and conscientious performance of all of the duties of citizenship, in small matters as well as great, at home as well as upon the tented field.

There is no more menacing feature in these modern times than the disinclination of what are called the better classes to assume the burdens of citizenship. If we desire to preserve to future generations the purity of our courts and the freedom of our people, we must lose no opportunity to impress upon our citizens the fact that above all pleasure, above all convenience, above all business, they must place their duty to their government; for a good government doubles every joy and a bad government multiplies every sorrow. Times change but principles endure. The jury has protected us from the abuse of power.

While human government exists the tendency to abuse power will remain. This system, coming down from former generations crowned with the honors of age, is today and for the future our hope.

Let us correct its defects with kindly hands, let us purge it of its imperfections and it will be, as in the past, the bulwark of our liberties.

Besides the work which I have mentioned, Mr. Bryan spoke briefly upon several other questions, namely, in favor of the election of United States Senators by a direct vote of the people, and in favor of the antioption bill; in opposition to the railroad pooling bill and against the extension of the Pacific liens.

In the Fifty-Third Congress, the Democrats adopted a rule which was somewhat similar to the one in force under Speaker Reed, providing for the counting of a quorum. Mr. Bryan opposed this rule and I quote the reasons which he then gave in support of his position.

Counting a Quorum.

The question upon which we are called to act is one of a great deal more importance than some members seem to think, and the objection which is made to the rule by some of us, who have not been able to favor it, is based upon reasons far more weighty than gentlemen have assumed.

The constitution of the State of Nebraska, which I have the honor in part to represent, contains this provision:

No bill shall be passed unless by assent of a majority of all the members elected to each House of the Legislature, and the question upon the final passage shall be taken immediately upon its last reading, and the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the journal.

The constitutions of a majority of the States of the Union, among them the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and I might name them all if time permitted, provide the same, the object being to prevent less than one half of all the members elected to the Legislature from passing laws. It is only by the concurrence of a majority of the members that we can

know that the majority of the people desire the law. The Constitution of the United States does not contain a similar provision; and there is no question, since the decision of the Supreme Court, that it is within the power of this House to declare by rule in what manner a quorum may be ascertained. It can be done in the manner provided in this rule, or it can be done by the call of the yeas and nays, as it has been done for a hundred years. Now, the question with me is this: Which is the safer plan? According to the rule which has been in vogue a hundred years, the minority has the safeguard which is expressly secured in the constitutions of a majority of the States; according to the old rule the minority, by refusing to vote, can compel the concurrence of a majority before a law is passed.

Now, I believe that is a wise provision. I do not see why it is wiser in a State than in Congress; I do not know why it is necessary that the members of the Legislature in my State, or in New York, should be compelled to vote yea or nay when a bill shall pass, and that a majority shall concur, unless the same reasons apply in this body.

We are asked to change this rule, which has been in operation since the beginning of the Government, and adopt a new rule; a rule not intended to enable the majority to rule, but to enable less than one-half of the members of Congress to pass laws for this country. I believe that the innovation is a dangerous one. There is far more safety in giving to the minority the power to delay legislation until a majority have expressed themselves in favor of a law. How can you tell that the people of the United States desire a particular law except by the voice of their representatives; and how can we tell that their representatives believe the bill should become a law until they have expressed themselves by vote in favor of the proposition?

In the spring of 1894, Mr. Bryan announced that he would not be a candidate for re-election to Congress, and later decided to stand as a candidate for the United States Senate. He was nominated for that office by the unanimous vote of the Democratic State Convention. While the Republicans made no nomination, it seemed certain that Mr. Thurston would be their candidate and the Democratic committee accordingly issued a challenge to him for a series of debates. The Republicans were also invited to arrange a debate between Mr. McKinley and Mr. Bryan, Mr. McKinley having at that time an appointment to speak in Nebraska. The latter invitation was declined, but two meetings were arranged with Mr. Thurston. These were the largest political gatherings ever held in the State and were as gratifying to the friends of Mr. Bryan as his previous debates. During the campaign, Mr. Bryan made a canvass of the State, speaking four or five hours each day, and sometimes riding thirty miles over rough roads between speeches. At the election, Nebraska shared in the general landslide; the Republicans had a large majority in the Legislature and elected Mr. Thurston.

This defeat was a disappointment, but it did not discourage Mr. Bryan, as is evident from an address to his supporters, extracts from which follow:

Letter to Friends after Senatorial Defeat.

* * *

The Legislature is Republican, and a Republican Senator will now be elected to represent Nebraska. This may be mortifying to the numerous chairmen who have introduced me to audiences as "the next Senator from Nebraska," but it illustrates the uncertainty of prophecies.

I appreciate more than words can express the cordial good will and the loyal support of the friends to whom I am indebted for the political honors which I have received. I am especially grateful to those who bear without humiliation the name of the common people, for they have been my friends when others have deserted me. I appreciate also the kind words of many who have been restrained by party ties from giving me their votes. I have been a hired man for four years, and, now that the campaign is closed, I may be pardoned for saying that as a public servant I have performed my duty to the best of my ability, and am not ashamed of the record made.

I stepped from private life into national politics at the bidding of my countrymen; at their bidding I again take my place in the ranks and resume without sorrow the work from which they called me. It is the glory of our institutions that public officials exercise authority by the consent of the governed rather than by divine or hereditary right. Paraphrasing the language of Job, each public servant can say of departing honors: The people gave and the people have taken away, blessed be the name of the people.

Speaking of my own experience in politics, I may again borrow an idea from the great sufferer and say: What, shall we receive good at the hands of the people, and shall we not receive evil? I have received good even beyond my deserts, and I accept defeat without complaint. I ask my friends not to cherish resentment against any one who may have contributed to the result.

* *

* *

The friends of these reforms have fought a good fight; they have kept the faith, and they will not have finished their course until the reforms are accomplished. Let us be grateful for the progress made, and "with malice toward none and charity for all" begin the work of the next campaign.

Mr. Bryan received the votes of all the Democrats and of nearly half of the Populist members. It might be suggested here that while Mr. Bryan had never received a nomination from the Populist party, he had been, since 1892, materially aided by individual members of that organization. In Nebraska, the Democratic party has been in the minority, and as there are several points of agreement between it and the Populist party, Mr. Bryan advocated co-operation between the two. In the spring of 1893, he received the support of a majority of the Democratic members of the Legislature, but, when it became evident that no Democrat could be elected, he assisted in the election of Senator Allen, a Populist. Again, in 1894, in the Democratic State Convention, he aided in securing the nomination of a portion of the Populist ticket, including Mr. Holcomb, Populist candidate for Governor. The cordial relations which existed between the Democrats and Populists

in Nebraska were a potent influence in securing his nomination at Chicago.

On September 1st, 1894, Mr. Bryan became chief of the editorial staff of the Omaha World-Herald, and from that date until the last national convention gave a portion of his time to this work. This position enabled him daily to reach a large number of people in the discussion of public questions and also added considerably to his income. While the contract fixed a certain amount of editorial matter as a minimum, his interest in the work was such that he generally exceeded rather than fell below the required space.

After the adjournment of Congress, Mr. Bryan, on his way home, lectured at Cincinnati, Nashville, Tenn., Little Rock, Ark., and at several points in Missouri, arriving in Lincoln March 19, his thirtyfifth birthday. The Jefferson Club tendered him a reception and an opera house packed with an appreciative audience rendered this a very gratifying occasion to Mr. Bryan. As he was no longer in public life, and could show no favors in return, the disinterested friendship shown will always be remembered with pleasure. He chose as his theme, "Thomas Jefferson still lives," and, after reviewing the work of the Fifty-third Congress, discussed at length the principles of his patron saint. His admiration for the Sage of Monticello is so well known that I quote a tribute which he once paid him:

Let us then, with the courage of Andrew Jackson, apply to present conditions the principles taught by Thomas Jefferson—Thomas Jefferson, the greatest constructive statesman whom the world has ever known; the grandest warrior who ever battled for human liberty! He quarried from the mountain of eternal truth the four pillars, upon whose strength all popular government must rest. In the Declaration of American Independence he proclaimed the principles with which there is, without which there cannot be "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." When he declared that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," he declared all that lies between the Alpha and Omega of Democracy.

Alexander "wept for other worlds to conquer" after he had carried his victorious banner throughout the then known world; Napoleon "rearranged the map of Europe with his sword" amid the lamentations of those by whose blood he was exalted; but when these and other military heroes are forgotten and their achievements disappear in the cycle's sweep of years, children will still lisp the name of Jefferson, and freemen will ascribe due praise to him who filled the kneeling subject's heart with hope and bade him stand erect-a sovereign among his peers.