north america-2-第63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！


　the　national　courts；　any　proviso　that　they　shall　cease　to　sit　after　a　certain　age；　they　are　in　fact　immovable　whatever　may　be　their　infirmities。　　Their　position　in　this　respect　is　not　good；　seeing　that　their　salaries　will　hardly　admit　of　their　making　adequate　provision　for　the　evening　of　life。　　The　salary　of　the　Chief　Justice　of　the　United　States　is　only　1300l。　per　annum。　All　judges　of　the　national　courts；　of　whatever　rank；　are　appointed　by　the　President；　but　their　appointments　must　be　confirmed　by　the　Senate。　　This　proviso；　however；　gives　to　the　Senate　practically　but　little　power；　and　is　rarely　used　in　opposition　to　the　will　of　the　President。　　If　the　President　name　one　candidate；　who　on　political　grounds　is　distasteful　to　a　majority　of　the　Senate；　it　is　not　probable　that　a　second　nomination　made　by　him　will　be　more　satisfactory。　　This　seems　now　to　be　understood；　and　the　nomination　of　the　cabinet　ministers　and　of　the　judges；　as　made　by　the　President；　are　seldom　set　aside　or　interfered　with　by　the　Senate；　unless　on　grounds　of　purely　personal　objection。　The　position　of　the　national　judges　as　to　their　appointments　and　mode　of　tenure　is　very　different　from　that　of　the　State　judges；　to　whom　in　a　few　lines　I　shall　more　specially　allude。　　This　should；　I　think；　be　specially　noticed　by　Englishmen　when　criticising　the　doings　of　the　American　courts。　　I　have　observed　statements　made　to　the　effect　that　decisions　given　by　American　judges　as　to　international　or　maritime　affairs　affecting　English　interests　could　not　be　trusted；　because　the　judges　so　giving　them　would　have　been　elected　by　popular　vote；　and　would　be　dependent　on　the　popular　voice　for　reappointment。　　This　is　not　so。　　Judges　are　appointed　by　popular　vote　in　very　many　of　the　States。　　But　all　matters　affecting　shipping　and　all　questions　touching　foreigners　are　tried　in　the　national　courts　before　judges　who　have　been　appointed　for　life。　　I　should　not　myself　have　had　any　fear　with　reference　to　the　ultimate　decision　in　the　affair　of　Slidell　and　Mason　had　the　〃Trent〃　been　carried　into　New　York。　　I　would；　however；　by　no　means　say　so　much　had　the　cause　been　one　for　trial　before　the　tribunals　of　the　State　of　New　York。　I　have　been　told　that　we　in　England　have　occasionally　fallen　into　the　error　of　attributing　to　the　Supreme　Court　at　Washington　a　quasi　political　power　which　it　does　not　possess。　　This　court　can　give　no　opinion　to　any　department　of　the　government；　nor　can　it　decide　upon　or　influence　any　subject　that　has　not　come　before　it　as　a　regularly　litigated　case　in　law。　　Though　especially　founded　by　the　Constitution；　it　has　no　peculiar　power　under　the　Constitution；　and　stands　in　no　peculiar　relation　either　to　that　or　to　acts　of　Congress。　　It　has　no　other　power　to　decide　on　the　constitutional　legality　of　an　act　of　Congress　or　an　act　of　a　State　legislature；　or　of　a　public　officer；　than　every　court；　State　and　National；　high　and　low；　possesses　and　is　bound　to　exercise。　　It　is　simply　the　national　court　of　last　appeal。　In　the　different　States　such　tribunals　have　been　established　as　each　State　by　its　constitution　and　legislation　has　seen　fit　to　adopt。　The　States　are　entirely　free　on　this　point。　　The　usual　course　is　to　have　one　Supreme　Court；　sometimes　called　by　that　name；　sometimes　the　Court　of　Appeals；　and　sometimes　the　Court　of　Errors。　　Then　they　have　such　especial　courts　as　their　convenience　may　dictate。　　The　State　jurisprudence　includes　all　causes　not　expressly　or　by　necessary　implication　secured　to　the　national　courts。　　The　tribunals　of　the　States　have　exclusive　control　over　domestic　relations；　religion；　education；　the　tenure　and　descent　of　land；　the　inheritance　of　property；　police　regulations；　municipal　economy；　and　all　matters　of　internal　trade。　　In　this　category；　of　course；　come　the　relations　of　husband　and　wife；　parent　and　child；　master　and　servant；　owner　and　slave；　guardian　and　ward；　tradesman　and　apprentice。　　So　also　do　all　police　and　criminal　regulations　not　external　in　their　character　highways；　railroads；　canals；　schools；　colleges；　the　relief　of　paupers；　and　those　thousand　other　affairs　of　the　world　by　which　men　are　daily　surrounded　in　their　own　homes　and　their　own　districts。　　As　to　such　subjects　Congress　can　make　no　law；　and　over　them　Congress　and　the　national　tribunals　have　no　jurisdiction。　　Congress　cannot　say　that　a　man　shall　be　hung　for　murder　in　New　York；　nor　if　a　man　be　condemned　to　be　hung　in　New　York　can　the　President　pardon　him。　　The　legislature　of　New　York　must　say　whether　or　no　hanging　shall　be　the　punishment　adjudged　to　murder　in　that　State；　and　the　Governor　of　the　State　of　New　York　must　pronounce　the　man's　pardonif　it　be　that　he　is　to　be　pardoned。　　But　Congress　must　decide　whether　or　no　a　man　shall　be　hung　for　murder　committed　on　the　high　seas；　or　in　the　national　forts　or　arsenals；　and　in　such　a　case　it　is　for　the　President　to　give　or　to　refuse　the　pardon。　The　judges　of　the　States　are　appointed　as　the　constitution　or　the　laws　of　each　State　may　direct　in　that　matter。　　The　appointments；　I　think；　in　all　the　old　States；　were　formerly　vested　in　the　governor。　In　some　States　such　is　still　the　case。　　In　some；　if　I　am　not　mistaken；　the　nomination　is　now　made；　directly；　by　the　legislature。　But　in　most　of　the　States　the　power　of　appointing　has　been　claimed　by　the　people；　and　the　judges　are　voted　in　by　popular　election；　just　as　the　President　of　the　Union　and　the　Governors　of　the　different　States　are　voted　in。　　There　has　for　some　years　been　a　growing　tendency　in　this　direction；　and　the　people　in　most　of　the　States　have　claimed　the　poweror　rather　the　power　has　been　given　to　the　people　by　politicians　who　have　wished　to　get　into　their　hands；　in　this　way；　the　patronage　of　the　courts。　　But　now；　at　the　present　moment；　there　is　arising　a　strong　feeling　of　the　inexpediency　of　appointing　judges　in　such　a　manner。　　An　anti…democratic　bias　is　taking　possession　of　men's　minds；　causing　a　reaction　against　that　tendency　to　universal　suffrage　in　everything　which　prevailed　before　the　war　began。　　As　to　this　matter　of　the　mode　of　appointing　judges；　I　have　heard　but　one　opinion　expressed；　and　I　am　inclined　to　think　that　a　change　will　be　made　in　one　State　after　another；　as　the　constitutions　of　the　different　States　are　revised。　　Such　revisions　take　place　generally　at　periods　of　about　twenty…five　years'　duration。　　If；　therefore；　it　be　acknowledged　that　the　system　be　bad；　the　error　can　be　soon　corrected。　Nor　is　this　mode　of　appointment　the　only　evil　that　has　been　adopted　in　the　State　judicatures。　　The　judges　in　most　of　the　States　are　not　appointed　for　life；　nor　even　during　good　behavior。　　They　enter　their　places　for　a　certain　term　of　years；　varying　from　fifteen　down；　I　believe；　to　seven。　　I　do　not　know　whether　any　are　appointed　for　a　term　of　less　than　seven　years。　　When　they　go　out　they　have　no　pensions；　and　as　a　lawyer　who　has　been　on　the　bench　for　seven　years　can　hardly　recall　his　practice；　and　find　himself　at　once　in　receipt　of　his　old　professional　income；　it　may　easily　be　imagined　how　great　will　be　the　judge's　anxiety　to　retain　his　position　on　the　bench。　This　he　can　do　only　by　the　universal　suffrages　of　the　people；　by　political　popularity；　and　a　general　standing　of　that　nature　which　enables　a　man　to　come　forth　as　the　favorite　candidate　of　the　lower　orders。　　This　may　or　may　not　be　well　when　the　place　sought　for　is　one　of　political　powerwhen　the　duties　required　are　political　in　all　their　bearings。　　But　no　one　can　think　it　well　when　the　place　sought　for　is　a　judge's　seat　on　the　benchwhen　the　duties　required　are　solely　judicial。　　Whatever　hitherto　may　have　been　the　conduct　of　the　judges　in　the　courts　of　the　different　States；　whether　or　no　impurity　has　yet　crept　in；　and　the　sanctity　of　justice　has　yet　been　outraged；　no　one　can　doubt　the　tendency　of　such　an　arrangement。　　At　present　even　a　few　visits　to　the　courts　constituted　in　this　manner　will　convince　an　observer　that　the　judges　on　the　bench　are　rather　inferior　than　superior　to　the　lawyers　who　practice　before　them。　　The　manner　of　address；　the　tone　of　voice；　the　lack　of　dignity　in　the　judge；　and　the　assumption　by　the　lawyer　before　him　of　a　higher　authority　than　his；　all　tell　this　tale。　　And　then　the　judges　in　these　courts　are　not　paid　at　a　rate　which　will　secure　the　services　of　the　best　men。　　They　vary　in　the　different　States；　running　from　about　600l。　to　about　1000l。　per　annum。　　But　a　successful　lawyer；　practicing　in　the　courts　in　which　these　judges　sit；　not　unfrequently　earns　3000l。　a　year。　　A　professional　income　of　2000l。　a　year　is　not　considered　very　high。　　When　the　different　conditions　of　the　bench　are　considered；　when　it　is　remembered　that　the　judge　may　lose　his　place　after　a　short　term　of　years；　and　that　during　that　short　term　of　years　he　receives　a　payment　much　less　than　that　earned　by　his　successful　professional　brethren；　it　can　hardly　be　expected　that　first…rate　judges　should　be　found。　　The　result　is　seen　daily　in　society。　　You　meet　Judge　This　and　Judge　That；　not　knowing　whether　they　are　ex…judges　or　in…judges；　but　you　soon　learn　that　your　friends　do　not　hold　any　very　high　social　position　on　account　of　their　forensic　dignity。　It　is；　perhaps；　but　just　to　add　that　in　Massachusetts；　which　I　cannot　but　regard　as　in　many　respects　the　noblest　of　the　States；　the　j