The heritage of English law brought with it the seeds of American liberty—not the flower and the fruit, which were to be produced after long labor and painful struggle. (1) , the seeds were there and they sprouted, took (2) and have continued to grow. To this (3) the inheritance was valuable, but it is not to be denied that even though English law gave us the seeds of liberty, it also (4) us a vast amount of useless lumber that we have not (5) entirely—after three hundred years of (6) effort. Even the system of trial by jury, in spite of its (7) value, came to us with burdensome, outworn ideas and (8) precautions, (9) the one hand, and with no adequate (10) of adaptation to changing conditions, on the other. For one thing, in the early days it was (11) that ignorance of the facts was a (12) of a juror’s impartiality. At that time, when means of communication were (13) and slow, there was something to be said for the idea; but today, when means of communication were (14) and almost instantaneous, ignorance of the facts is (15) , not of impartiality, (16) of extraordinary stupidity, or of extraordinary indifference. The rule that a juror must be (17) of the facts is, therefore, a rule that (18) against, not for the effort to (19) the jury box with honest men of ordinary intelligence. It has become so hopeless, indeed, that the courts literally (20) long ago trying to enforce it. It is, nevertheless, still a theoretical part of the system.