Studies in Civics. J. T. McCleary
this be done in due form. As each step is taken, let the reasons for it be made clear.
2. Maintaining Roads.—Road overseers return the list of persons liable to road labor. How are these facts ascertained, and when must the "return" be made?
Supervisors meet and assess road labor, and sign road tax warrants. When and how is this done?
How is the road tax usually paid? How else may it be paid? How does the overseer indicate that a person's tax is paid? If a person liable to road tax does not "commute," and yet neglects or refuses to appear when duly notified by the road overseer, what can the latter do about it? How is delinquent road tax collected? How can a person who has paid his tax prove that he has paid it?
Under which of the three great purposes of government mentioned in the preliminary chapter does the making of roads come?
THE TOWN—Continued.
THE SCHOOLS.
Does the town system or the district system prevail in this state? If the latter, tell how a school district is organized. Give an account of the organization of this district.
How many and what officers have charge of the schools? State the duties of each. Name the officers in this district. When are the officers chosen, and how long do they serve? Are all chosen at once? Why? How do they "qualify?" Are women eligible to school offices? To any other?
Did you ever attend the annual meeting? When is it held? Why held then? Who take part? What business is transacted? What are "special" school meetings?
What expenses must be met in having a school? Where does the money come from? How does the treasurer get it into his possession? What is to prevent his misusing it?
By whom is the teacher chosen? Why not elect the teacher at the annual meeting? Get a teacher's contract and find out who the contracting parties are, and what each agrees to do. Why is the contract in writing? How many copies of it are made? Who keep them, and why?
If you had a bill against the district, how would you proceed to get your money? If the district refused or neglected to pay you, what could you do? If some one owed the district and refused to pay, what could it do?
Who owns the school buildings and grounds? How was ownership obtained? If it seemed best to erect a new schoolhouse in some other part of the district, what could be done with the present buildings and grounds? Could the district buy land for other than school purposes? Could it lend money if it had any to spare? If the district had not money enough to erect its buildings, what could it do? What are the corporate powers of a district?
Questions for Debate.
Resolved, That it is unfair to tax a bachelor to support a school.
Resolved, That the town system is better than the district system.
CHAPTER II.
PRIMITIVE MODES OF ADMINISTERING JUSTICE.
Trial by Ordeal.—Boys settle some matters about which they cannot agree by "tossing up a penny," or by "drawing cuts." In a game of ball they determine "first innings" by "tossing the bat." Differences in a game of marbles, they settle by guessing "odd or even," or by "trying it over to prove it." In all these modes of adjustment there is an appeal to chance. Probably behind these practices is the feeling that the boy who ought to win will somehow guess right. This appealing to chance to settle questions of fact is characteristic of society in its primitive state. Modes of establishing justice similar in principle to these boy practices prevail to this day among superstitious peoples. They have prevailed even in Europe, not only among people of low mental power, but also among the cultured Greeks. Among our own Saxon ancestors the following modes of trial are known to have been used: A person accused of crime was required to walk blindfolded and barefoot over a piece of ground on which hot ploughshares lay at unequal distances, or to plunge his arm into hot water. If in either case he escaped unhurt he was declared innocent. This was called Trial by Ordeal. The theory was that Providence would protect the innocent.
Trial by Battle.—Sometimes boys settle their disputes by fighting. This, too, was one of the modes of adjudication prevalent in early times among men. Trial by Battle was introduced into England by the Normans. "It was the last and most solemn resort to try titles to real estate." [Footnote: Dole's Talks about Law, p. 53.] The duel remained until recently, and indeed yet remains in some countries, as a reminder of that time. And disputes between countries are even now, almost without exception, settled by an appeal to arms. Perhaps the thought is that "he is thrice armed that hath his quarrel just." Sometimes when one of the boys is too small to fight for his rights, another boy will take his part and fight in his stead. Similarly, in the Trial by Battle, the parties could fight personally or by "champion." Interesting accounts of this mode of trial are given by Green and Blackstone, and in Scott's "Talisman."
Arbitration.—Two boys who have a difference may "leave it to" some other boy in whom they both have confidence. And men did and do settle disputes in a similar way. They call it settlement by Arbitration.
A boy would hardly refer a matter for decision to his little brother. Why?
Folk-Moot.—Still another common way for two boys to decide a question about which they differ is to "leave it to the boys," some of whom are knowing to the facts and others not. Each of the disputants tells his story, subject to more or less interruption, and calls upon other boys to corroborate his statements. The assembled company then decides the matter, "renders its verdict," and if necessary carries it into execution. In this procedure the boys are re-enacting the scenes of the Folk-moot or town meeting of our Saxon ancestors.
Boy-Courts.—Let us look at this boy-court again to discover its principal elements.
In the first place, we see that every boy in the crowd feels that he has a right to assist in arriving at the decision, that "the boys" collectively are to settle the matter. In other words, that the establishment of justice is a public trust. So our Saxon forefathers used to come together in the Folk-moot and as a body decide differences between man and man. The boys have no special persons to perform special duties; that is, no court officers. Neither, at first, did those old Saxons.
Secondly, in the boy-court the facts in the case are brought out by means of witnesses. So it was in the Folk-moot, and so it is in most civilized countries today. Among those old Saxons the custom grew up of allowing the facts in the case to be determined by twelve men of the neighborhood, who were most intimately acquainted with those facts. When they came over to England these Saxons brought this custom with them, and from it has been developed the Trial by Jury. The colonists of this country, most of whom came from England, brought with them this important element in the establishment of justice, and it is found today in nearly all the states.
Again, when in the boy-court the facts of the case have been established and it becomes necessary to apply the rules of the game to the particular case, the boys frequently, invariably in difficult cases, turn to some boy or boys known to be well versed in the principles of the game, and defer to his or their opinion. And, similarly, in the Folk-moot, much deference was paid in rendering judgment to the old men who for many years had helped to render justice, and who, in consequence, had much knowledge of the customs, unwritten laws, in accordance with which decisions were rendered. In this deference to one or more persons who are recognized as understanding the principles involved in the case, we see the germ of judgeship in our present courts.
And finally, a boy naturally reserves the right, mentally or avowedly, of appealing from the decision of the boys to the teacher or his father, in case he feels that he has been unjustly dealt with.
Thus we see that the principal elements of the courts of today, the establishment of justice as a public trust, the determination of the