Jury System at Bowdoin.

In the fall of 1883 a new system of college government was presented to the Bowdoin students for ratification, the general scope of which is indicated by the following clause from Article 1:

"The administration of justice in the college shall be conducted by the president representing the faculty, and a jury representing the students."

After due consideration the "Articles of Agreement" were adopted by an almost unanimous vote, and the first jury was at once chosen. Each class is allowed to elect one member, and each chartered chapter of an inter-collegiate fraternity, if numbering at least ten persons; also the non-society men, if ten in number, elect a member. Society feeling at Bowdoin is so strong that it would probably be impossible for a system of self-government to succeed, unless it recognized the different fraternities, but under the present arrangement all prominent interests are represented on the jury.

The relation of the president to the jury is explained by Article 12.

"The president is in no sense a member of the jury, his relation to it being for the most part like that of a judge to a civil jury. He may present to them any matter of business, may assist them in any way that they desire in the discharge of their duties.

But he cannot control their legitimate action as jurymen," etc.

The power of the jury is defined by Article 14.

"The distinctive office of the jury in conjunction with the president is to administer justice, and within that line of duty its jurisdiction shall cover all matters relating to the peace, order, security, and good name of the undergraduate college community, except matters (1), of payments due to or from the college; (2), of rank, appointment, or award; (3), of conduct during recitations, declamations, or lectures; and (4), of attendance at required exercises. But in all these excepted matters the question of deception, or deliberate falsehood, if raised, shall be a distinct issue within the jurisdiction of the jury."

The Articles of Agreement establish four grades of offenses; (1), deliberate falsehood; (2), grave misdemeanors; (3), major offenses; (4), minor offenses; and they also provide a penalty or penalties, for each grade.

A supposed offense may be brought before the jury by the president, by one of the members, or by any student or body of students, and it is then their duty to investigate the case with reasonable promptness, obtaining their information by whatever honorable means may appear most desirable. They may consult with the president, but he cannot control their action. Having formed an opinion, they decide upon a verdict of fact, which must be agreed to by a majority, and which state the grade of the offense, together with such aggravating or extenuating circumstances as have been allowed to qualify this verdict.

It is the duty of the president to pass sentence according to the verdict, but, if the student can show good cause, he may lower the grade of the offense or remit the penalty entirely. "But," though the president has this pardoning power, "he cannot in any case impose a heavier penalty than that of the grade fixed by the jury."

Article 25 begins, "The aim of these Articles of Agreement is to secure truthfulness, prompt redress of grievances, fair treatment for all, and that education and self-restraint which come from participation in and submission to a representative government."

Some idea of how far this last has been attained may be gained from the statement of the late Prof. Packard, who was counected with the college for about seventy years, and as professor for more than sixty, that in all that time there had never been a year so quiet as the last.

He attributed this result largely to the jury system, which, by making the students themselves responsible for the maintenance of good order, has caused them to feel a pride in showing that they are capable of self-restraint.

Under the old arrangement it was thought rather smart to get ahead of the faculty, and there was often much bitterness manifested. Under the jury system there is little chance for such a feeling to display itself, and the students are more willing to submit to the judgment of the jury than they formerly were to bow to the will of the faculty, as they no longer feel that they are being condemned by unfriendly, or at least unsym pathetic persons.

Faculty and students are inevitably drawn closer together, and a free interchange of views is encouraged, which does much towards removing misunderstandings and producing that spirit of harmony and confidence so necessary for the highest degree of success.