north america-2-第62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！


their　law　as　men　do　in　England。　　It　may　be　answered　that　they　get　more　law　for　their　money。　　That　may　be　possible；　and　even　yet　they　may　not　be　gainers。　　I　have　been　inclined　to　think　that　there　was　an　unnecessarily　slow　and　expensive　ceremonial　among　us　in　the　employment　of　barristers　through　a　third　party；　it　has　seemed　that　the　man　of　learning；　on　whose　efforts　the　litigant　really　depends；　is　divided　off　from　his　client　and　employer　by　an　unfair　barrier；　used　only　to　enhance　his　own　dignity　and　give　an　unnecessary　grandeur　to　his　position。　　I　still　think　that　the　fault　with　us　lies　in　this　direction。　　But　I　feel　that　I　am　less　inclined　to　demand　an　immediate　alteration　in　our　practice　than　I　was　before　I　had　seen　any　of　the　American　courts　of　law。　It　should　be　generally　understood　that　lawyers　are　the　leading　men　in　the　States；　and　that　the　governance　of　the　country　has　been　almost　entirely　in　their　hands　ever　since　the　political　life　of　the　nation　became　full　and　strong。　　All　public　business　of　importance　falls　naturally　into　their　hands；　as　with　us　it　falls　into　the　hands　of　men　of　settled　wealth　and　landed　property。　　Indeed；　the　fact　on　which　I　insist　is　much　more　clear　and　defined　in　the　States　than　it　is　with　us。　　In　England　the　lawyers　also　obtain　no　inconsiderable　share　of　political　and　municipal　power。　　The　latter　is　perhaps　more　in　the　hands　of　merchants　and　men　in　trade　than　of　any　other　class；　and　even　the　highest　seats　of　political　greatness　are　more　open　with　us　to　the　world　at　large　than　they　seem　to　be　in　the　States　to　any　that　are　not　lawyers。　　Since　the　days　of　Washington　every　President　of　the　United　States　has；　I　think；　been　a　lawyer；　excepting　General　Taylor。　　Other　Presidents　have　been　generals；　but　then　they　have　also　been　lawyers。　　General　Jackson　was　a　successful　lawyer。　　Almost　all　the　leading　politicians　of　the　present　day　are　lawyers。　　Seward；　Cameron；　Welles；　Stanton；　Chase；　Sumner；　Crittenden；　Harris；　Fessenden；　are　all　lawyers。　　Webster；　Clay；　Calhoun；　and　Cass　were　lawyers。　　Hamilton　and　Jay　were　lawyers。　　Any　man　with　an　ambition　to　enter　upon　public　life　becomes　a　lawyer　as　a　matter　of　course。　It　seems　as　though　a　study　and　practice　of　the　law　were　necessary　ingredients　in　a　man's　preparation　for　political　life。　　I　have　no　doubt　that　a　very　large　proportion　of　both　houses　of　legislature　would　be　found　to　consist　of　lawyers。　　I　do　not　remember　that　I　know　of　the　circumstance　of　more　than　one　Senator　who　is　not　a　lawyer。　Lawyers　form　the　ruling　class　in　America；　as　the　landowners　do　with　us。　　With　us　that　ruling　class　is　the　wealthiest　class；　but　this　is　not　so　in　the　States。　　It　might　be　wished　that　it　were　so。　The　great　and　ever…present　difference　between　the　National　or　Federal　affairs　of　the　United　States　government　and　the　affairs　of　the　government　of　each　individual　State；　should　be　borne　in　mind　at　all　times　by　those　who　desire　to　understand　the　political　position　of　the　States。　　Till　this　be　realized　no　one　can　have　any　correct　idea　of　the　bearings　of　politics　in　that　country。　　As　a　matter　of　course　we　in　England　have　been　inclined　to　regard　the　government　and　Congress　of　Washington　as　paramount　throughout　the　States；　in　the　same　way　that　the　government　of　Downing　Street　and　the　Parliament　of　Westminster　are　paramount　through　the　British　isles。　　Such　a　mistake　is　natural；　but　not　the　less　would　it　be　a　fatal　bar　to　any　correct　understanding　of　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。　　The　National　and　State　governments　are　independent　of　each　other；　and　so　also　are　the　National　and　State　tribunals。　　Each　of　these　separate　tribunals　has　its　own　judicature；　its　own　judges；　its　own　courts；　and　its　own　functions。　　Nor　can　the　supreme　tribunal　at　Washington　exercise　any　authority　over　the　proceedings　of　the　courts　in　the　different　States；　or　influence　the　decision　of　their　judges。　　For　not　only　are　the　National　judges　and　State　judges　independent　of　each　other；　but　the　laws　in　accordance　with　which　they　are　bound　to　act　may　be　essentially　different。　　The　two　tribunalsthose　of　the　nation　and　of　the　Stateare　independent　and　final　in　their　several　spheres。　　On　a　matter　of　State　jurisprudence　no　appeal　lies　from　the　supreme　tribunal　of　New　York　or　Massachusetts　to　the　supreme　tribunal　of　the　nation　at　Washington。　The　National　tribunals　are　of　two　classes。　　First；　there　is　the　Supreme　Court　specially　ordained　by　the　Constitution。　　And　then　there　are　such　inferior　courts　as　Congress　may　from　time　to　time　see　fit　to　establish。　　Congress　has　no　power　to　abolish　the　Supreme　Court；　or　to　erect　another　tribunal　superior　to　it。　　This　court　sits　at　Washington；　and　is　a　final　court　of　appeal　from　the　inferior　national　courts　of　the　Federal　empire。　　A　system　of　inferior　courts；　inaugurated　by　Congress；　has　existed　for　about　sixty　years。　　Each　State　for　purposes　of　national　jurisprudence　is　constituted　as　a　district；　some　few　large　States；　such　as　New　York；　Pennsylvania；　and　Illinois；　being　divided　into　two　districts。　　Each　district　has　one　district　court；　presided　over　by　one　judge。　　National　causes　in　general；　both　civil　and　criminal；　are　commenced　in　these　district　courts；　and　those　involving　only　small　amounts　are　ended　there。　Above　these　district　courts　are　the　National　circuit　courts；　the　districts　or　States　having　been　grouped　into　circuits　as　the　counties　are　grouped　with　us。　　To　each　of　these　circuits　is　assigned　one　of　the　judges　of　the　Supreme　Court　of　Washington；　who　is　the　ex…　officio　judge　of　that　circuit；　and　who　therefore　travels　as　do　our　common　law　judges。　　In　each　district　he　sits　with　the　judge　of　that　district；　and　they　two　together　form　the　circuit　court。　　Appeals　from　the　district　court　lie　to　the　circuit　court　in　cases　over　a　certain　amount；　and　also　in　certain　criminal　cases。　　It　follows　therefore　that　appeals　lie　from　one　judge　to　the　same　judge　when　sitting　with　anotheran　arrangement　which　would　seem　to　be　fraught　with　some　inconvenience。　　Certain　causes；　both　civil　and　criminal；　are　commenced　in　the　circuit　courts。　　From　the　circuit　courts　the　appeal　lies　to　the　Supreme　Court　at　Washington；　but　such　appeal　beyond　the　circuit　court　is　not　allowed　in　cases　which　are　of　small　magnitude　or　which　do　not　involve　principles　of　importance。　　If　there　be　a　division　of　opinion　in　the　circuit　court　the　case　goes　to　the　Supreme　Court；　from　whence　it　might　be　inferred　that　all　cases　brought　from　the　district　court　to　the　circuit　court　would　be　sent　on　to　the　Supreme　Court；　unless　the　circuit　judge　agreed　with　the　district　judge；　for　the　district　judge　having　given　his　judgment　in　the　inferior　court；　would　probably　adhere　to　it　in　the　superior　court。　　No　appeal　lies　to　the　Supreme　Court　at　Washington　in　criminal　cases。　All　questions　that　concern　more　than　one　State；　or　that　are　litigated　between　citizens　of　different　States；　or　which　are　international　in　their　bearing；　come　before　the　national　judges。　All　cases　in　which　foreigners　are　concerned；　or　the　rights　of　foreigners；　are　brought　or　may　be　brought　into　the　national　courts。　So　also　are　all　causes　affecting　the　Union　itself；　or　which　are　governed　by　the　laws　of　Congress　and　not　by　the　laws　of　any　individual　State。　　All　questions　of　admiralty　law　and　maritime　jurisdiction；　and　cases　affecting　ambassadors　or　consuls；　are　there　tried。　　Matters　relating　to　the　post…office；　to　the　customs；　the　collection　of　national　taxes；　to　patents；　to　the　army　and　navy；　and　to　the　mint；　are　tried　in　the　national　courts。　　The　theory　is；　that　the　national　tribunals　shall　expound　and　administer　the　national　laws　and　treaties；　protect　national　offices　and　national　rights；　and　that　foreigners　and　citizens　of　other　States　shall　not　be　required　to　submit　to　the　decisions　of　the　State　tribunals；　in　fact；　that　national　tribunals　shall　take　cognizance　of　all　matters　as　to　which　the　general　government　of　the　nation　is　responsible。　　In　most　of　such　cases　the　national　tribunals　have　exclusive　jurisdiction。　　In　others　it　is　optional　with　the　plaintiff　to　select　his　tribunal。　　It　is　then　optional　with　the　defendant；　if　brought　into　a　State　court；　to　remain　there　or　to　remove　his　cause　into　the　national　tribunal。　The　principle　is；　that　either　at　the　beginning；　or　ultimately；　such　questions　shall　or　may　be　decided　by　the　national　tribunals。　　If　in　any　suit　properly　cognizable　in　a　State　court　the　decision　should　turn　on　a　clause　in　the　Constitution；　or　on　a　law　of　the　United　States；　or　on　the　act　of　a　national　offense；　or　on　the　validity　of　a　national　act；　an　appeal　lies　to　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States　and　to　its　officers。　　The　object　has　been　to　give　to　the　national　tribunals　of　the　nation　full　cognizance　of　its　own　laws；　treaties；　and　congressional　acts。　The　judges　of　all　the　national　tribunals；　of　whatever　grade　or　rank；　hold　their　offices　for　life；　and　are　removable　only　on　impeachment。　They　are　not　even　removable　on　an　address　of　Congress；　thus　holding　on　a　firmer　tenure　even　than　our　own　judges；　who　may；　I　believe；　be　moved　on　an　address　by　Parliament。　　The　judges　in　America　are　not　entitled　to　any　pension　or　retiring　allowances；　and　as　there　is　not；　as　regards　the　judges　of　the　national　courts；　any　proviso　that　they　shall　cease　to　sit　after　a　certain　age；　they　are　in　fact