north america-2-第61节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


have　none；　pensions　they　never　give；　and　political　disgrace　is　unknown。　The　line　of　politics　would　seem　to　be　cold　and　unalluring。　　It　is　cold；　and　would　be　unalluring；　were　it　not　that　as　a　profession　it　is　profitable。　　In　much　of　this　I　expect　that　a　change　will　gradually　take　place。　　The　theory　has　been　that　public　affairs　should　be　in　the　hands　of　little　men。　　The　theory　was　intelligible　while　the　public　affairs　were　small；　but　they　are　small　no　longer；　and　that　theory；　I　fancy；　will　have　to　alter　itself。　　Great　men　are　needed　for　the　government；　and　in　order　to　produce　great　men　a　career　of　greatness　must　be　opened　to　them。　　I　can　see　no　reason　why　the　career　and　the　men　should　not　be　forthcoming。

CHAPTER　XI。　THE　LAW　COURTS　AND　LAWYERS　OF　THE　UNITED　STATES。

I　do　not　propose　to　make　any　attempt　to　explain　in　detail　the　practices　and　rules　of　the　American　courts　of　law。　　No　one　but　a　lawyer　should　trust　himself　with　such　a　task；　and　no　lawyer　would　be　enabled　to　do　so　in　the　few　pages　which　I　shall　here　devote　to　the　subject。　　My　present　object　is　to　explain；　as　far　as　I　may　be　able　to　do　so；　the　existing　political　position　of　the　country。　　As　this　must　depend　more　or　less　upon　the　power　vested　in　the　hands　of　the　judges；　and　upon　the　tenure　by　which　those　judges　hold　their　offices；　I　shall　endeavor　to　describe　the　circumstances　of　the　position　in　which　the　American　judges　are　placed；　the　mode　in　which　they　are　appointed；　the　difference　which　exists　between　the　National　judges　and　the　State　judges；　and　the　extent　to　which　they　are　or　are　not　held　in　high　esteem　by　the　general　public　whom　they　serve。　It　will；　I　think；　be　acknowledged　that　this　last　matter　is　one　of　almost　paramount　importance　to　the　welfare　of　a　country。　　At　home　in　England　we　do　not　realize　the　importance　to　us　in　a　political　as　well　as　social　view　of　the　dignity　and　purity　of　our　judges；　because　we　take　from　them　all　that　dignity　and　purity　can　give　as　a　matter　of　course。　　The　honesty　of　our　bench　is　to　us　almost　as　the　honesty　of　heaven。　　No　one　dreams　that　it　can　be　questioned　or　become　questionable；　and　therefore　there　are　but　few　who　are　thankful　for　its　blessings。　　Few　Englishmen　care　to　know　much　about　their　own　courts　of　law；　or　are　even　aware　that　the　judges　are　the　protectors　of　their　liberties　and　property。　　There　are　the　men；　honored　on　all　sides；　trusted　by　every　one；　removed　above　temptation；　holding　positions　which　are　coveted　by　all　lawyers。　　That　it　is　so　is　enough　for　us；　and　as　the　good　thence　derived　comes　to　us　so　easily；　we　forget　to　remember　that　we　might　possibly　be　without　it。　　The　law　courts　of　the　States　have　much　in　their　simplicity　and　the　general　intelligence　of　their　arrangements　to　recommend　them。　　In　all　ordinary　causes　justice　is　done　with　economy；　with　expedition；　and　I　believe　with　precision。　　But　they　strike　an　Englishman　at　once　as　being　deficient　in　splendor　and　dignity；　as　wanting　that　reverence　which　we　think　should　be　paid　to　words　falling　from　the　bench；　and　as　being　in　danger　as　to　that　purity　without　which　a　judge　becomes　a　curse　among　a　people；　a　chief　of　thieves；　and　an　arch…minister　of　the　Evil　One。　　I　say　as　being　in　danger；　not　that　I　mean　to　hint　that　such　want　of　purity　has　been　shown；　or　that　I　wish　it　to　be　believed　that　judges　with　itching　palms　do　sit　upon　the　American　bench；　but　because　the　present　political　tendency　of　the　State　arrangements　threatens　to　produce　such　danger。　　We　in　England　trust　implicitly　in　our　judgesnot　because　they　are　Englishmen；　but　because　they　are　Englishmen　carefully　selected　for　their　high　positions。　　We　should　soon　distrust　them　if　they　were　elected　by　universal　suffrage　from　all　the　barristers　and　attorneys　practicing　in　the　different　courts；　and　so　elected　only　for　a　period　of　years；　as　is　the　case　with　reference　to　many　of　the　State　judges　in　America。　　Such　a　mode　of　appointment　would；　in　our　estimation；　at　once　rob　them　of　their　prestige。　　And　our　distrust　would　not　be　diminished　if　the　pay　accorded　to　the　work　were　so　small　that　no　lawyer　in　good　practice　could　afford　to　accept　the　situation。　　When　we　look　at　a　judge　in　court；　venerable　beneath　his　wig　and　adorned　with　his　ermine；　we　do　not　admit　to　ourselves　that　that　high　officer　is　honest　because　he　is　placed　above　temptation　by　the　magnitude　of　his　salary。　　We　do　not　suspect　that　he；　as　an　individual；　would　accept　bribes　and　favor　suitors　if　he　were　in　want　of　money。　　But；　still；　we　know　as　a　fact　that　an　honest　man；　like　any　other　good　article；　must　be　paid　for　at　a　high　price。　　Judges　and　bishops　expect　those　rewards　which　all　men　win　who　rise　to　the　highest　steps　on　the　ladder　of　their　profession。　　And　the　better　they　are　paid；　within　measure；　the　better　they　will　be　as　judges　and　bishops。　　Now；　the　judges　in　America　are　not　well　paid；　and　the　best　lawyers　cannot　afford　to　sit　upon　the　bench。　With　us　the　practice　of　the　law　and　the　judicature　of　our　law　courts　are　divided。　　We　have　chancery　barristers　and　common　law　barristers；　and　we　have　chancery　courts　and　courts　of　common　law。　　In　the　States　there　is　no　such　division。　　It　prevails　neither　in　the　National　or　Federal　courts　of　the　United　States；　nor　in　the　courts　of　any　of　the　separate　States。　　The　code　of　laws　used　by　the　Americans　is　taken　almost　entirely　from　our　English　lawsor　rather；　I　should　say；　the　Federal　code　used　by　the　nation　is　so　taken；　and　also　the　various　codes　of　the　different　Statesas　each　State　takes　whatever　laws　it　may　think　fit　to　adopt。　　Even　the　precedents　of　our　courts　are　held　as　precedents　in　the　American　courts；　unless　they　chance　to　jar　against　other　decisions　given　specially　in　their　own　courts　with　reference　to　cases　of　their　own。　　In　this　respect　the　founders　of　the　American　law　proceedings　have　shown　a　conservation　bias　and　a　predilection　for　English　written　and　traditional　law　which　are　much　at　variance　with　that　general　democratic　passion　for　change　by　which　we　generally　presume　the　Americans　to　have　been　actuated　at　their　Revolution。　　But　though　they　have　kept　our　laws；　and　still　respect　our　reading　of　those　laws；　they　have　greatly　altered　and　simplified　our　practice。　　Whether　a　double　set　of　courts　of　law　and　equity　are　or　are　not　expedient；　either　in　the　one　country　or　in　the　other；　I　do　not　pretend　to　know。　　It　is；　however；　the　fact　that　there　is　no　such　division　in　the　States。　Moreover；　there　is　no　division　in　the　legal　profession。　　With　us　we　have　barristers　and　attorneys。　　In　the　States　the　same　man　is　both　barrister　and　attorney；　andwhich　is　perhaps　in　effect　more　startlingevery　lawyer　is　presumed　to　undertake　law　cases　of　every　description。　　The　same　man　makes　your　will；　sells　your　property；　brings　an　action　for　you　of　trespass　against　your　neighbor；　defends　you　when　you　are　accused　of　murder；　recovers　for　you　two　and　sixpence；　and　pleads　for　you　in　an　argument　of　three　days'　length　when　you　claim　to　be　the　sole　heir　to　your　grandfather's　enormous　property。　　I　need　not　describe　how　terribly　distinct　with　us　is　the　difference　between　an　attorney　and　a　barrister；　or　how　much　farther　than　poles　asunder　is　the　future　Lord　Chancellor；　pleading　before　the　Lords　Justices　at　Lincoln's　Inn；　from　the　gentleman　who；　at　the　Old　Bailey；　is　endeavoring　to　secure　the　personal　liberty　of　the　ruffian　who；　a　week　or　two　since；　walked　off　with　all　your　silver　spoons。　　In　the　States　no　such　differences　are　known。　　A　lawyer　there　is　a　lawyer；　and　is　supposed　to　do　for　any　client　any　work　that　a　lawyer　may　be　called　on　to　perform。　　But　though　this　is　the　theoryand　as　regards　any　difference　between　attorney　and　barrister　is　altogether　the　factthe　assumed　practice　is　not；　and　cannot　be；　maintained　as　regards　the　various　branches　of　a　lawyer's　work。　　When　the　population　was　smaller；　and　the　law　cases　were　less　complicated；　the　theory　and　the　practice　were　no　doubt　alike。　　As　great　cities　have　grown　up；　and　properties　large　in　amount　have　come　under　litigation；　certain　lawyers　have　found　it　expedient　and　practicable　to　devote　themselves　to　special　branches　of　their　profession。　　But　this；　even　up　to　the　present　time；　has　not　been　done　openly；　as　it　were；　or　with　any　declaration　made　by　a　man　as　to　his　own　branch　of　his　calling。　　I　believe　that　no　such　declaration　on　his　part　would　be　in　accordance　with　the　rules　of　the　profession。　　He　takes　a　partner；　however；　and　thus　attains　his　object；　or　more　than　one　partner；　and　then　the　business　of　the　house　is　divided　among　them　according　to　their　individual　specialties。　　One　will　plead　in　court；　another　will　give　chamber　counsel；　and　a　third　will　take　that　lower　business　which　must　be　done；　but　which　first…rate　men　hardly　like　to　do。　It　will　easily　be　perceived　that　law　in　this　way　will　be　made　cheaper　to　the　litigant。　　Whether　or　no　that　may　be　an　unadulterated　advantage；　I　have　my　doubts。　　I　fancy　that　the　united　professional　incomes　of　all　the　lawyers　in　the　States　would　exceed　in　amount　those　made　in　England。　　In　America　every　man　of　note　seems　to　be　a　lawyer；　and　I　am　told　that　any　lawyer　who　will　work　may　make　a　sure　income。　　If　it　be　so；　it　would　seem　that　Americans　per　head　pay　as　much　（or　more）　for　their　law　as　men　do　in　England。　　It　may　be　answered　that　they　get　more　law　for　their　money。　　That　ma