THAT ONEROUS TASK: JURY SERVICE IN SOUTH CAROLINA DURING THE EARLY 1790s

The State Gazette of South Carolina of Monday, January 10, 1791, contained a notice which listed thirty-five men who had failed to attend jury service at the courts of General Sessions and Common Pleas held at Coosawhatchie Bridge in Beaufort District on November 5, 1790.l Such a notice was not uncommon. Between January, 1790, and December, 1791, the State Gazette carried ninety-six similar notices, concerning seventeen different court sessions, and listing over three hundred and fifty men who had failed to appear when sum moned. This study examines those who avoided jury service in South Carolina during the early 1790s, and explains their reasons for non attendance. It will suggest that Carolinians were, at best, reluctant jury members. Many lowcountry inhabitants preferred to pay the fine for non-appearance rather than suffer the various discomforts associ ated with attendance. In the less wealthy backcountry areas the fine ensured attendance. It was the backcountry jurors, however, who complained the loudest about the lack of financial compensation for jury service. Attendance did not imply any degree of satisfaction or enthusiasm. The responses to jury duty among lowcountry and back country inhabitants provide an insight into Carolinian society imme diately following the ratification of the new State Constitution in 1790. Grand Jury presentments during the early 1970s enabled jury members to air their grievances to the General Assembly. Such presentments covered a variety of subjects, from the poor condition of jails to corruption amongst local officials. The most frequently recur ring grievance, however, was the failure to compensate jury members for their attendance. The Grand Jury of Camden District complained