In this corrupt and lawless manner, Congress, instead of taking care to preserve the trial by jury, so far as they might, by providing for the appointment of legal juries--incomparably the most important of all our judicial tribunals, and the only ones on which the least reliance can be placed for the preservation of liberty--have given the selection of them over entirely to the control of an indefinite number of state legislatures, and thus authorized each state legislature to adapt the juries of the United States to the maintenance of any and every system of tyranny that may prevail in such state. Congress have as much constitutional right to give over all the functions of the United States government into the hands of the state legislatures, to be exercised within each state in such manner as the legislature of such state shall please to exercise them, as they have to thus give up to these legislatures the selection of juries for the courts of the United States. There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution. These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people. If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States--that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights--it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced. Probably the best mode of appointing jurors would be this: Let the names of _all_ the adult male members of the state, in each township, be kept in a jury box, by the officers of the township; and when a court is to be held for a county or other district, let the officers of a sufficient number of townships be required (without seeing the names) to draw out a name from their boxes respectively, to be returned to the court as a juror. This mode of appointment would guard against collusion and selection; and juries so appointed would be likely to be a fair epitome of "the country." [Footnote 79: On the English Constitution.] [Footnote 80: Although all the freemen are legally eligible as jurors, any one may nevertheless be challenged and set aside, at the trial, for any special _personal_ disqualification; such as mental or physical inability to perform the duties; having been convicted, or being under charge, of crime; interest, bias, &c. But it is clear that the common law allows none of these points to be determined by the court, but only by "_triers_."] [Footnote 81: What was the precise meaning of the Saxon word, which I have here called _elderly_, I do not know. In the Latin translations it is rendered by _seniores_, which may perhaps mean simply those who have attained their majority.]