thorough, more dignified, more calculated to impress the new generation
with a sense of the gravity of the public choice, and infinitely more
likely to give us good rulers than the present method, and that it
would do so without sacrificing any essential good quality whatever
inherent in the Democratic Idea. [Footnote: There are excellent
possibilities, both in the United States and in this Empire, of trying
over such a method as this, and of introducing it tentatively and
piecemeal. In Great Britain already there are quite different methods
of election for Parliament existing side by side. In the Hythe division
of Kent, for example, I vote by ballot with elaborate secrecy; in the
University of London I declare my vote in a room full of people. The
British University constituencies, or one of them, might very readily
be used as a practical test of this jury suggestion. There is nothing,
I believe, in the Constitution of the United States to prevent any one
State resorting to this characteristically Anglo-Saxon method of
appointing its representatives in Congress. It is not only in political
institutions that the method may be tried. Any societies or
institutions that have to send delegates to a conference or meeting
might very easily bring this conception to a practical test. Even if it
does not prove practicable as a substitute for election by polling, it
might be found of some value for the appointment of members of the
specialist type, for whom at present we generally resort to co-option.
In many cases where the selection of specialists was desirable to
complete public bodies, juries of educated men of the British Grand
Jury type might be highly serviceable.] The case for the use of the
Jury system becomes far stronger when we apply it to such problems as
we now attempt to solve by co-opting experts upon various
administrative bodies.

The necessity either of raising the quality of representative bodies or