Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/497

 LANG v. NEW JERSEY. 209 U. 8. Opinion of the Court. body of citizens to take part in the clue administration of the law for the benefit of all who were entitled to its protection, and not specially or even primarily for the benefit of those charged with. its violation." This we accept as the proper construction of the statute, and see no unconstitutional discrimination in it. It is to the effect that certain qualifications have been deemed advisable in order to make the grand jury a more efficient instrument of justiceualifications which have no relation to any par- ticular defendant or class of defendants. And the practical is regarded. Objection' may be taken before a jury is sworn, but not afterwards, and the statute uses for its purpose the Prosecutor of Pleas, those who stand accused of crime and even, the court says, an amicus cur/. A grand jury thus se- cured will have all the statutory qualifications in most cases for all defendants; and besides the discrimination is very substantial, as was pointed out in Gabs e,t al. v. State, 16 Vroom, 382. Counsel has not been able to point out what prejudice re- suits to defendants from the enforcement of the statute. Hc urges a verbal discrimination, and invokes the Fourteenth Amendment against it. The statute, he in effect says, fixes the limit of service at twenty-one and sixty-five years, and confesses the latter is "somewhat carly," but seeks to sustain his contention as follows: "And though it may not be possible in any case to show that the fact of the juror being above the lawful age has worked injustice to the defendant, he is not required to show it. It is enough that a statute has been transgressed which was enacted, in some measure at least, for his benefit. The due observance of that statute is part of the protection of the laws, to which, equally with all others in like circumst,.nccs, he is entitled under the guaranty of the Fourteenth Amendment." But this proceeds upon a misconception of the purpose of the statute, as was pointed out by the Court of Errors and Appeals, and of the power of the State.

�