no agreement can be reached, a lawsuit permit is issued by the justice and handed to the plaintiff, which he in turn presents to the court. In a majority of cases the court proceedings are oral; only in exceptional cases, involving difficult and novel questions or intricate accounts, an order will be made for written preparatory proceedings. After the court hears an oral statement of the claim and the defence, it decides whether further evidence shall be produced, and issues an order setting forth what must be established by each party in the form of written testimony; and this must be presented to the court in an accurate and carefully-prepared form. The judgment of the court is first rendered orally, and written notice of the same given to the parties. When an appeal lies, it must be taken within ten days from the receipt of the above notice. In all cases the plaintiff must make a deposit to cover the costs, but the costs are to be finally paid by the party cast in the suit. Under the constitutional provision, that final civil judgments rendered in one Canton are executory in any other Canton, sometimes a question arises as to the obligation of one Canton to carry out the decree of the court of another Canton. This question must be referred for final decision to the federal authorities. In only one Canton, that of Uri, is there a departure from the federal system, and there the cantonal courts have the power to declare invalid a cantonal legislative enactment. Trial by jury, even for felony, does not universally exist in the Cantons. The substitution of a tribunal or judicial body instead of the unitary system, though claimed to be almost tantamount, is far from fulfilling the essential purpose of a jury. Knowledge, skill, and strict impartiality belong to the judge; common sense and common feelings to private individuals on a jury. The judge is deaf, blind, and inexorable, and knows only the law; the jury is under the influence of public opinion, or even of public prejudices, which must not be overlooked altogether, and for the sake of the law itself, of peace and good government. The jury is, in fact, a legislative as well as a judicial power, negatively at least, for deciding on law as well as on fact; they may and do silence the law when they please. Unforeseen cases occur sometimes where an undue advantage is taken of the law. The jury may suspend, in fact, its application until it is altered; in other cases, less uncommon, the strict application of the law would be directly in opposition to public feelings and prejudices, to the extent of threatening popular violence and revolution. A judge cannot make the law bend to circumstances; government cannot yield without disclosing weakness and encouraging the factious; but the jury, being supposed to participate in these public feelings, may preserve the peace without disgrace, by a sort of innocent denial of justice. A jury of judges,