Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/498

 472 OCTOBER TERM, 907. Oplnion of t Oot. Let it  gn, in deference  the arment of tMt the stu kes two clth who   of cme d th tt y  ,accthere  cey no cnation wit the c, d the oy quition  whether,  ew of the p of the stu,  the c- fication jtifi? In other wor, whether the  n- stitutg the cls are M different latio  the pp of the w. t they are we tMnk is obo; and,  we Mve d, the w neither offe or withhoh sutti r. It titu one of i itmmenliti of  'qfication wch ot affect entlly the cMr at or the delete of anx defendant. It  the conpon of the State tMt a d ju  cotitut would  more efficient  the stration of jtice tMn one not  stitu, but that there wod be cqcting  the ght of cMllenge shoed be extended yond the da of the empanelment of the ju. lye tk it  comment for the Sta  have so prod. It 11  orv tMt the pro,sion of the stu  tMt no exception  a juror "on accost of s citip or a  ay o l  [ili ou] sMU  allow afar he h n sworn." It is hence connded tMt "the p- ciple of the decision" under renew  not h  the " ury disqua]ifitions." The  d, however, "whether the wor& of the st!tute, 'any other dbihty,' clude the common law oun,ls of prejudi, li d the like, d, if so, what wl(l  the righ and remedies of an c pcmon who had had no oppounity to clle a ven jr upon these pconal grounds  not involv  the fac of the prcnt case or in the line of reasoning upon which, in our judgment, its decision should be placed." In connection t comment e L v. Sa o[ Nay Js, 7 U.S. 67.

�