The freer a country is, and the quicker its step in the march of civilization, the more lawyers it will naturally have. The growth and importance of the bar are stunted wherever it is overshadowed by an hereditary aristocracy. A land of absolutism and stagnation has no use for lawyers. The institutions of China would not be safe if she had a bar. Lawyers are a conservative force in a free country; an upheaving force under a despotic government. In Russia one is found enough to serve over thirty thousand; in the United States there is about one to every six hundred and sixty of the population,[Footnote: In 1870, there was one to every 946; in 1880, one to every 782.] and in England one to every eleven hundred.

The colonial lawyers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries occupied an inferior place in the community as compared with that now held by the legal profession. There was comparatively little opportunity to rise to eminence. The positions on the bench, as has been seen, were largely held by those not trained as lawyers. Before such judges it was a waste of words to make elaborate arguments on points of law.

Among the first settlers were a few who had been educated for the English bar. One of them, in Massachusetts, Rev. Nathaniel Ward, drafted the Magna Charta or "Body of Liberties" of that colony, adopted in 1641. His opinion of the need of lawyers may be inferred from the fact that it provided expressly that those who pleaded causes for others should receive no compensation for it. Virginia adopted the same policy from 1645 to 1662. Later, lawyers practicing in Massachusetts were excluded from the General Court. As that had large judicial powers, it was thought fitting to give no opportunity to any to sit there to-day to judge and to appear to-morrow before an inferior court to argue as an advocate.[Footnote: Hutchinson, "History of Massachusetts," III, 104.]

As time went on, an American was occasionally sent to London to read law. He was apt to be a young man of fortune, who entered the Temple or the Inns of Court more as a means of gaining pleasant acquaintances than for any serious purpose of education. Most of them came from Pennsylvania and the Southern colonies. Two Presidents of the Continental Congress, Randolph and McKean, four signers of the Declaration of Independence, Heyward, Lynch, Middleton, Edward Rutledge, and John Rutledge, one of the first associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, were of the number.

Not infrequently there were legal proceedings in London which concerned colonial interests. Their charters were attacked or colony laws and judgments put in question before the Lords of Trade and Plantations. In such proceedings, if counsel were needed, English barristers were generally employed. An American lawyer now and then went over to consult with them and perhaps to join in the argument, but the leading part was theirs.

It was not until the quickening and deepening of American life which preceded and portended the Revolution that anything like a colonial bar, led by a man of learning and position, really came into existence.[Footnote: "Two Centuries' Growth of American Law," 16.] From the middle of the eighteenth century to its close there was a steady and rapid progress in this direction. Legal education was taken seriously. In the case of many it began with the fundamental notions of justice and right. The Greek and Latin classics on those heads were read.[Footnote: "Life of Peter Van Schaick," 9.] The private law of the Romans was studied to a greater extent relatively than it is now. The first chair of law in the United States was established at William and Mary College in 1779, and there, under Chancellor Wythe, John Marshall was a student. President Stiles of Yale, in his "Literary Diary," so full of that kind of historical incident which after a few years have passed it is most difficult to trace, enumerates the books read by his son, Ezra Stiles, Jr., between 1778 and 1781, in preparation for the Connecticut bar, under the advice and in the offices of Judge Parker of Portsmouth and Charles Chauncey of New Haven. They comprehended, besides much in English and Scotch law, Burlamaqui's Principes de Droit Naturel, Montesquieu, de l'Esprit des Lois, the Institutes of Justinian, certain titles of the Pandects, and Puffendorf de Officio Hominis et Civis juxta Legem Naturalem. James Kent at about the same time was reading Grotius and Puffendorf in the office of the Attorney-General of New York, and Edward Livingston, under Chancellor Lansing, explored all parts of the Corpus Juris Civilis.[Footnote: Hunt, "Life of Edward Livingston," 41.] John Quincy Adams a few years later, under the instruction of Chief Justice Parsons of Massachusetts, took up Vattel and the Institutes of Justinian.[Footnote: Report of the American Bar Association for 1903, 675, note.] The latter, as well as Van Muyden's Compendiosa Tractatio of them, his father had studied in his preparation for the bar thirty years before.[Footnote: "Life and Works of John Adams," I, 46.]

The lectures of Chancellor Wythe at William and Mary, like those of Mr. Justice Wilson in 1790 at the University of Pennsylvania and of Chancellor Kent in 1794 at Columbia, were designed, as were Blackstone's at Oxford, to give such information as to the nature and principles of law as might be of service to any one desirous of acquiring a liberal education. Such instruction could not be considered as anything approaching a proper preparation for entering on the practice of the legal profession.

The United States preceded England in the endeavor to provide such a preparation by a systematic course of study pursued under competent teachers at a seat of learning established for that sole purpose.

The need of something of the kind was felt to be pressing after the independence of the United States had been fully established. An unusual number of young men of promise were turning from the army to the bar.[Footnote: "Memoirs of James Kent," 31. In 1788, the number of attorneys in the State of New York had risen to 120. Morse's "American Geography," ed. 1796, 506. Thirty years later it was 1,200. Miles' "Register," XIV, 311.] Those already members of it had educated themselves as best they could, with slight assistance from the lawyers in whose offices they had studied. They in turn were indisposed to do more for such as might desire to read law in their offices. Few of them were competent to do much.[Footnote: See "Life of Peter Van Schaick," 9, 13.]

There was a demand for a professed school of law, and in 1784 the first in any English-speaking country was opened at Litchfield, Connecticut. There are now 104 of them,[Footnote: Report of the American Bar Association for 1903, p. 398.] with a total attendance of over fourteen thousand students. The course of study in a few may be completed in one year; in most two are required; in the rest three, with perhaps an offer of a fourth for advanced instruction leading to the degree of master or doctor of laws. The ordinary degree is that of bachelor of laws (LL.B.).

The American Bar Association has had an important influence from its first organization, in 1877, in prolonging the period and raising the standards of legal education. In affiliation with it there is an "Association of American Law Schools," representing a large majority of the teachers and students engaged in law school work. This admits no institution into its ranks at which students are received without a preliminary education at least equal to that given by the ordinary high school. A few of the schools so associated receive no student, save in exceptional cases, unless he already holds a degree in arts, science, philosophy, or letters from some collegiate institution.

In several of the States having boards of State examiners no one is admitted to the final examination before them who did not prior to the beginning of his education receive one of the degrees above indicated or else pass a special examination before the same board on certain prescribed studies, corresponding substantially with those ordinarily pursued in a high school.

Some proof is everywhere required that an applicant for admission to the bar possesses a good moral character. It is necessarily largely a matter of form. Certificates are sometimes required from those familiar with his previous life, and sometimes the mere motion for his admission by a member of the bar representing the examining committee is accepted as sufficiently implying that no unworthy person would be thus presented.

In a few States a distinction is made between attorneys with reference to the courts in which they may practice. When first admitted it is to the bar of the trial courts. Later, after a few years of experience, they can be admitted on further examination to practice also in the highest courts of the State.

This distinction reaches back, in New Jersey, to the colonial era. Attorneys were there a different class from "counsellors," and, following the English practice, the style of "sergeant" was also formerly bestowed on leaders at the bar. The last lawyer bearing the title survived until nearly the middle of the nineteenth century. In this State the Governor has always issued the licenses or commissions to attorneys and solicitors in chancery, but for more than a hundred and fifty years only on the recommendation of the Supreme Court.[Footnote: In re Branch, 70 N. J. Law Reports; 57 Atlantic Reporter, 431.]

The admission of attorneys in the several courts of the United States is determined by rules which they respectively establish from time to time. These rules make the only qualification membership in regular standing for a certain period of time in the bar of a State and good moral character.

There is no doubt that the United States have been in advance of England both in providing means of legal education and in requiring their use. The length of the course of study now established at our older Law Schools—three years—seems all that can reasonably be exacted, if a proper foundation of general discipline and knowledge has been previously laid. The first provision for one or more years of graduate study for those who may desire it was made at Yale University in 1876, and a similar opportunity has since been offered at several others; but it has been availed of by few, and of these a considerable part had in view the teaching of law as their ultimate vocation rather than its practice.

Unquestionably the American bar is now, as a whole, a far better trained class of men than it was twenty or thirty years ago, and the efficiency of the courts has been correspondingly increased.

* * * * *

Members of the bar are always subject to punishment by the court for official misconduct. This may be by censure, temporary suspension from practice, or disbarment. If guilty of contempt of court, they can also be sentenced to fine or imprisonment.[Footnote: See Chap. XX.] As suspension or disbarment means a loss, temporary or permanent, of a livelihood, it is only ordered in aggravated cases and after an opportunity for a formal hearing.

Disbarment cannot be decreed by the legislative department. That would be virtually an act of attainder. It must come from a judicial sentence.[Footnote: Ex parte Garland, 4 Wallace's Reports, 333, 378.]

In some States the principal trial court, which is the one by order of which attorneys generally are admitted to the bar, appoints a standing committee on grievances. In others such committees are created by Bar Associations, of which almost every State has one for the whole State, while several have also one or more local associations. It is the duty of such a committee to inquire into any instances of professional misconduct that may be brought to their notice and either institute proceedings for a hearing before themselves or bring the matter to the attention of the court, so that they may be instituted there by its order and conducted by the public prosecutor. In the larger States, several inquiries of this nature are ordinarily set on foot every year, which result in suspension or disbarment. In the smaller States they are rare, both because they have smaller bars and because the smaller a bar is the more difficult is it for any one of its number to hide any misdoing from the rest.

The Bar Associations, which first began to start up soon after the Civil War, have been of great service in upholding the honor of the profession. Their Constitutions generally name this particularly as among their professed objects. One State[Footnote: Alabama] has recently under such influences, passed a statute making it a misdemeanor for an attorney to send out "runners" to solicit practice, and requiring the public prosecuting officer to institute proceedings for any violation of the law, upon the complaint of the council of the State Bar Association.

The steadily and rapidly increasing proportion of lawyers to the population in the United States necessarily tends to a lowering of their average professional income, and this tendency is not fully overcome by the increase of the wealth and business of the country. The principle of the concentration of industry also works against the great majority of them. Searching titles to real estate, for instance, was until the last half of the nineteenth century part of the business of every lawyer. It is now in the larger cities monopolized by certain firms or corporations, who own copies or abstracts of the public records, laboriously prepared, which give them special facilities for doing the work rapidly and well. So collecting uncontested debts was formerly the staple of many a lawyer's practice. The general abolition of imprisonment for debt about the middle of the nineteenth century rendered the process much more difficult and the fees less, and of late years great collection agencies, generally corporations, have sprung up, with an extensive system of correspondents among members of the bar, by whom most suits of such a nature are now brought under an agreement to divide their fees with the central bureau.

Until the last half of the nineteenth century there were probably no lawyers in this country whose average net income from year to year was equal to that of the leaders of the English bar. In 1806 there was but one lawyer in New England with an annual professional income of $10,000: until about 1860 there was none in Connecticut, and probably not over a hundred in the entire country.[Footnote: Parton, "Life of Aaron Burr." 153; Great American Lawyers, III, 55.] In 1827, William Wirt was informed by Justice Thompson of the Supreme Court of the United States that "six, eight, and ten thousand dollars is considered great practice in New York and ten thousand dollars the maximum."[Footnote: Kennedy, "Memoirs of William Wirt," II, 209.] Thirty years later the same was true, except that twenty thousand dollars had then become the highest annual average, and that but of a very few.[Footnote: Parton, "Life of Aaron Burr," 153.] Daniel Webster earned from $12,000 to $20,000 when at the height of his career.[Footnote: Harvey, "Reminiscences of Daniel Webster," 84.]

The Civil War was the occasion of many important business enterprises, and gave rise to much litigation. It brought also a great increase of wealth to the North and West, and new and greater investments of Northern capital in the South. From that time the business of the leading lawyers in every State became more remunerative. Incomes of $20,000 and $25,000 were occasionally earned in the smaller States, and of four or five times as much in the larger ones.

The American lawyer of the eighteenth century was apt to have his office in his house. During the nineteenth century this became less and less common and is now comparatively rare. In cities certain streets, generally near the court-house, are crowded with lawyers' offices. These are generally over business stores, but in some places residential streets have been converted to this use, and what was formerly a handsome mansion will have the chambers of counsel on every floor.

In many of the counties in Virginia chambers for the accommodation of the lawyers are built in the rear of the court-house on public ground. A small rent is paid by the occupants to the county. When court is about to open each day the crier calls out from one of the court-house windows the name of each lawyer to notify him of the fact.

The relations of the bar to the bench assume a peculiar character under the conditions of American society. The judges stand closer to the lawyers in this country than in any other. All of them, unlike those of continental Europe, have been themselves practicing lawyers. The majority, unlike those of England, are young men, sitting in minor courts, who have generally left the bar for but a brief period, expecting, if not desiring, soon to return to it. Not a few hold court but one or two days in the week or one or two hours in the day, and for the rest of the time are actively engaged in professional practice before other courts. Those of the latter description always occupy a somewhat unfortunate position. The State does not expect them to devote themselves entirely to its service. It does not provide for their compensation on that basis. It expects them to continue the general practice of their profession, except so far as their judicial duties may necessarily prevent. They certainly cannot practice in their own court with propriety. Statutes to prevent it are not uncommon. For the same man to charge the jury one day as judge and address them the next in argument as counsel must tend to confuse their notions as to the weight they should give to what he says, and to lend it often a weight which it may not deserve. So, too, his relations to the clerk and other court officers are such officially as to give him opportunities for influencing them when he is engaged at the bar, not shared by his brother lawyers.[Footnote: French v. Waterbury, 72 Conn. Reports, 435; 44 Atlantic Reporter, 740.]

There are, however, in every State quite a number of judges of higher courts who receive a salary deemed sufficient for their support and who are expected to devote their entire time to judicial duties. As respects those of the United States courts there is a statute (U. S. Revised Statutes, Sec. 713) making it criminal for them to practice law. Similar legislation exists in some of the States with regard to the judges of their higher courts, but without it a sense of propriety dictates their abstaining from it, and it has even been held that the right of any judge of a superior trial court of general jurisdiction over important causes to act as an attorney or counsellor, except in his own cause, is suspended by implication of law so long as he retains his seat on the bench.[Footnote: Perry v. Bush, 45 Florida Reports; 35 Southern Reporter, 225.]

The demeanor of the judges to the bar is inevitably affected to some extent by their tenure of office. If they hold their places for life, they naturally are less sedulous to avoid giving offense and less ready to tolerate a poor or tedious argument. A greater distance is maintained for this cause between bench and bar in the federal courts than is usual in most of the State courts.

No judge, however, desires to have the reputation of being overbearing, rough or impatient, and few are. Chief Justice Parsons of Massachusetts at one time fell into an inveterate habit on the circuit of checking counsel in argument rather curtly when they seemed to him to wander from the vital point. The leaders of the bar of Boston finally determined to stop it, and arranged at the next term at which he was to preside that whoever of them was thus treated should leave the court room. The first to address the court was checked in the usual manner, and observing that he regretted his argument seemed not worthy of the court's attention, took his papers and went out. The next met the same kind of interruption in the same way, and so on until the court room was cleared. The Chief Justice afterwards sought an explanation, received it in good part, and was forever cured of what had been a serious impediment to his usefulness on the bench.[Footnote: See George F. Hoar, Autobiography, II, 397.] Occasionally a trial judge will have a similar lesson taught him by finding no business to be disposed of when he opens court, and learning later that the bar agreed to the continuance of all pending cases, because they did not care to trust him with them, or were disinclined to submit to his manner of conducting a hearing.

Judges are universally desirous of securing the good opinion of the bar as respects their knowledge of law and powers of discrimination and analysis. The bar is their little world. It is a critical world, for in every case that is tried there will be one lawyer who is dissatisfied with the result, and likely to think the judge wrong rather than himself, if every proposition of law which he has asserted has not been conceded.

It is much more common for American judges to be too tolerant of a waste of time by counsel than to be too impatient at it.[Footnote: See a striking instance of this tendency given in Cleveland, Painesville & Eastern R. R. Co. v. Pritschau, 69 Ohio State Reports, 438; 69 Eastern Reporter, 663.] They dislike even to seem harsh. Most of them also hold office only for a term of years and do not forget that undue severity may jeopardize their re-election. This is one reason for the fact that at all points the bar are subject to fewer restrictions upon their conduct in the trial of causes in American courts than in those of most other countries. Another, and a more fundamental one, is that the judges and lawyers stand more nearly on the same level both in public regard and official position. The lawyer holds a more permanent office in the court than the judge. He is quite likely to be his superior in learning and ability. He belongs to a class that is influential in the community, and whose members usually share quite actively in the direction of party politics. The judge in most instances holds but a brief authority. He does not wish to parade it in such a manner as might seem offensive. He is in danger of seeming to parade it if he goes beyond what is necessary in regulating the conduct of the lawyers who may appear before him. The judge who keeps a rigid watch on the examination of witnesses to exclude all improper testimony, whether objection be made to it or not, declines to hear argument on matters that may appear to him too clear to justify it, and is impatient when argument on doubtful points is continued longer than he thinks worth while, may be respected, but he will never be popular. Trials for these reasons are longer in the United States than in England. Fewer summary rulings are made. More questionable evidence is admitted. More time is allowed to counsel in the argument of the cause, and more freedom in arguing points that may seem immaterial to the court.

The broad liberty of appeal generally allowed is another reason for hesitation on the part of trial judges to interfere more than seems absolutely necessary with the management of a cause by counsel. It is not merely the legal right of appeal but the practice under it which is a peculiar feature of our judicial system. A foreign lawyer often hesitates to cross swords with the judge. He distrusts his own judgment if it differs from that of the court. He defers to the opinion of the bench, not only as stating the law of the case, but as probably stating the law of the land. He therefore seldom appeals on minor points of procedure, even if he could. In the United States probably one case in ten of all that go to trial is carried up for review on points of law; many of them mere matters of practice not affecting the merits of the cause.

The American lawyer can also safely speak with freedom of the conduct of the government or of high officials should it come in question.

Those in any court, high or low, who hope for a reappointment know that the best way to obtain it is to secure the good will of the bar. The reputation of a judge depends on the opinion which the lawyers have of him. The general public may be deceived as to his character, ability and attainments; the bar cannot be.

In the public sessions of court there are few judges who are not impressed with the necessity of maintaining the dignity of their position as representing the power of the State. The lawyers recognize this feeling as just. It is common for them to rise as a body when the judge enters the bench. They find no difficulty in using the conventional style of address of "May it please the Court," or "May it please your Honor." When a ruling is made in the course of a trial the lawyer, whose client is adversely affected by it, accepts it without further discussion, simply reserving his exception, if he have one, for purposes of review in a higher court. If, in addressing the jury, counsel exceed the bounds of professional license in commenting on testimony or alluding to the character of the parties, the court will check them without hesitation.

Less outward respect was shown toward the courts by the bar in former times than now, and it often received less courtesy of treatment from the bench. An incident occurring in Massachusetts about the beginning of the nineteenth century may serve as an illustration. Robert Treat Paine, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, resigned his seat on the bench of the Supreme Judicial Court in 1804, at the age of seventy, largely on account of deafness. Naturally somewhat imperious in temperament, his bearing toward the bar had seemed harsher from this infirmity. Fisher Ames used to refer to him as Ursa Major, and once told a friend that he should not go into court again, when Judge Paine held it, without a club in one hand and a speaking trumpet in the other. Theophilus Parsons, not long afterwards made Chief Justice of the State, was arguing before him one day when the judge, under the misconception into which a deaf old person so easily falls, that the younger generation all speak hurriedly and indistinctly, cried out, "Mr. Parsons, I tell you once for all, take that glove off your tongue." "Certainly, Sir," was the quick retort, "and may I beg your honor to take the wool out of your ears?"[Footnote: "Memoir of Theophilus Parsons," 214.]

Some twenty years later Roger Minott Sherman, the leader of the Connecticut bar, in trying a cause before an empty-headed judge who had been put on the bench for no other apparent reason than that his father was a man of distinction, quoted several English authorities and was about to read from another when the judge remarked that he need not take the trouble to read anything more of that sort to him. "Then," said Mr. Sherman, "with your Honor's permission I will read from it to the jury, and let me say that it is an opinion of Lord Ellenborough, a Chief Justice of England who rose to the bench by his own merits, and shone by no reflected light."

One of the anecdotes of the Boston bar is that while Samuel Dexter, one of the great lawyers of his day, was arguing a cause in the Circuit Court of the United States before Justice Story, soon after his accession to the bench, the court suddenly interposed, as a certain principle was asserted, with "That proposition is not law, Sir," to which Mr. Dexter retorted, "It is the law, if your Honor please, and will finally be declared to be the law by this court," as indeed it was later by Justice Story himself.[Footnote: Payne, "Reminiscences of the Rhode Island Bar," 241.]

Such a passage at arms between court and counsel as took place in either of these instances could now hardly occur.

Out of court there is no longer this distance between judge and lawyer. While they will not talk over an unfinished case, one that is finally disposed of is often the subject of free comment by each. They are now entirely upon the same level in the community. Officialism is put off when the court room is closed.

Socially they meet in the same circles and on the same footing. It is considered not improper for a judge to accept the hospitality of a lawyer concerned in a case before him, and even a case on trial. The American rule in this respect is much less strict than the English.[Footnote: See "Memoir of Chief Justice Parsons," 208-211.]

* * * * *



CHAPTER XXIV

THE LAW'S DELAYS

The right to be heard before judgment, the right to have judgment rendered only on due process of law, and the right in most cases to a jury trial, necessarily make the course of justice slower in this country than it need be in one where there are no such guaranties in favor of those against whom the aid of a court is invoked. The plaintiff, too, has corresponding rights. It was found not so easy by Frederick the Great to enforce his famous decree that every lawsuit in his dominions must be finished in a year. In a freer land no such result is possible.

The power of the judge to expedite trials is also much less in the United States than in most countries. They must be had mainly on oral testimony. The testimony must be so given that thirteen different men may each understand it. What the witnesses may be allowed to tell, and what they cannot be, depends on the application of numerous and artificial rules of evidence. If there is a question as to whether this rule or that applies, the judges sometimes invite and generally allow a discussion by counsel. Appeals are liberally conceded. If exceptions to any ruling of the court are to be made the basis of proceedings in error, they must be carefully noted at the time, and afterwards made the subject of a lengthy set of papers.

Many trial judges are young men of little experience either on the bench or at the bar. They are learning the law by administering it. Such men cannot decide controverted points in a moment, and shut off all unnecessary discussion in the manner that might be expected and tolerated from judges of the first rank. It is hardly probable that they will always come to the right decision at last. Hence it is that so great a liberty of appeal is granted in every American State.

Appeal means delay.[Footnote: See Chap. XIX.] A man is fortunate whose appeal is heard within three months and decided within six. Oftener he must expect to wait a year or two. During a long course of years an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States could not be reached for argument in regular order in less than three years after it was taken. In Nebraska, for some time prior to 1901 the Supreme Court was so overwhelmed with business that it could not hear a cause until five years after it was docketed.

In 1882 a brakeman was injured on a New York railroad. He brought suit against the company, and in 1884 recovered $4,000 damages. The judgment in 1886 was reversed on appeal. On a new trial he got a verdict for $4,900. This was appealed to two courts successively. The first affirmed and the second reversed the judgment. In 1889, there was a third trial, at which the company won. Two appeals by the brakeman followed. On the first the intermediate appellate court, in 1894, decided against him. On the second, in 1897, the court of last resort decided for him. For the fourth time the case came on in the trial court, and a verdict for $4,500 was recovered. The company appealed and with success. A fifth trial gave him a verdict for $4,900. This, too, was set aside on appeal. A sixth trial followed with exactly the same results. In 1902, the seventh and final trial took place. The verdict this time was for $4,500. The company appealed again, but was defeated.[Footnote: Case and Comment, X, 50.] A lawsuit that embraces seven appeals and lasts for twenty years is, of course, a rarity, but the system of administrative justice under which such things are possible is faulty somewhere. The right of trial by jury is one cause of such delays. The broad right of appeal is another. The want of skill and experience on the part of trial judges and trial lawyers may be a third. The twenty-three English judges of the High Court of Justice (with the aid of masters in chancery and referees) actually try and determine about fifty-six hundred cases a year.[Footnote: This was the average number for each of the years 1900 and 1901.] Each judge, therefore, on the average, dispatches over two hundred and forty. No American judges under our American system of practice could do as much and do it well. We tolerate a succession of motions and objections and arguments from the bar which English courts would not. We often take more time in impanelling a jury than they would in trying the case.

The American bar, unlike the English, is not so constituted that a certain number of its members are professedly devoted in a special way to the trial of cases. The English barrister in active practice may almost be said to do nothing else. His standing and his income depend on his ability to try case after case in rapid succession. Others are responsible for their slow and careful preparation. He is responsible for their quick and effective dispatch when the preparation is ended. He becomes necessarily familiar with the technique of a trial at every point. In examining a witness, he strikes directly at what is material, and would be ashamed to appear ignorant of what that is. In argument he stops when he is through. The ordinary American lawyer who tries a case to-day, draws papers constituting a partnership or a corporation the next, and prepares an opinion on the construction of a will the day after, has not that concentration of knowledge which comes from concentration of occupation.

The art of making a clear and definite statement of the points in controversy on paper is also one not sufficiently cultivated by the American bar. Without it the system of "code pleading," which has in most States supplanted the rigid and often meaningless forms of the common law, leads to confusion and obscurity. The claims of each party ought to be, but seldom are, so presented that matters of law are, so far as possible, kept distinct from matters of fact, and what he means to prove is set forth, but not the evidence by which he hopes to establish it. This looseness of pleading leads to endless motions to expunge this and correct that, and time of the court is taken up by the preliminaries of trials which, if the lawyers used more care or had more skill, would be devoted to the trials themselves. Still worse is it when such motions are postponed until the case comes on for final hearing, and witnesses and juries are compelled to wait during tedious arguments over questions of mere form.

In our great centers of population business under these circumstances almost necessarily accumulates too fast for the courts to handle it.

In bringing on criminal trials there is little delay, unless at the request of the accused, and for what seems good reason. Our Constitutions generally provide that whoever is to be tried on a criminal charge shall be tried promptly, and the practice of the courts conforms to this rule. The broad right of appeal, however, for errors of law on the part of the court may serve to postpone the execution of a sentence, and too many new trials are granted by the courts for steps in procedure in matters of a purely technical character. Delays from this cause are, however, comparatively infrequent. Most convicts are too poor to take advantage of it. Most also know that their sentence is just, and are anxious only to have it executed and through with as soon as possible. In hardly one case in a hundred is an appeal taken or, if taken, pursued to the end.[Footnote: See Chap. XVII.]

In our largest cities the disposition of criminal business occupies the time of several judges, and the prosecuting officer has a staff of professional assistants. In cases of such importance as to call for his personal management a postponement is occasionally inevitable. In Chicago, in December, 1903, over a thousand cases were awaiting trial in the Criminal Court.

It tends to expedition in the trial of any cause if it is heard before a judge especially familiar with the class of questions which it involves. Criminal courts, particularly in cities, are largely held by judges whose work is either wholly or mainly confined to them. This helps greatly to prevent delays in such tribunals. For a similar cause admiralty business is dispatched with great rapidity by the District Judges at our principal ports, and patent causes by the Circuit Courts.

In the criminal courts of New York City in 1903, there were about 3,000 prosecutions on which indictments were found, and the defendant committed for want of bail. In most of these cases there was a plea of guilty, but counting them with the others, the average time as to all which elapsed between the original arrest and the final judgment was only eight days. During the same time those who gave bail were generally tried within three months from their arrest.[Footnote: Nathan A. Smyth in the Harvard Law Review for March, 1904.]

An insufficiency of judges was formerly one great cause of delay, but the modern tendency has been to have too many, rather than too few. In the Court of Chancery in Virginia (which was held by a single Chancellor, then a man seventy-six years old) there were in 1802, 2,627 causes pending at one term.

In the city of New York a jury trial in civil causes cannot ordinarily be reached until two years after they are brought. In its principal trial court between four and five thousand cases are annually disposed of, and in 1903, there were nearly ten thousand on its docket. When the criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan—the greatest division of the city—were opened in October of that year, there were nearly five hundred different prosecutions to be disposed of, and a hundred and sixty-seven prisoners awaiting trial who had been unable to procure bail.

In the county containing the city of Chicago (and which contains little else), there were in 1903 twenty thousand civil cases on the dockets of the courts. This mass of business it would require more than two years and a half to dispose of with the number of judges then provided, were no new suits instituted to divide their attention.

A very large part of the cases tried to the jury are claims for damages for accidental injuries received by employees in the course of their service. In the county in Missouri including Kansas City there were, in December, 1903, over fifty-one hundred civil causes on the dockets of the various courts. The population of the county was less than two hundred thousand. About three-fourths of the cases were against corporations for injuries received by their employees. The defendant in such an action is generally in no hurry to bring it to trial. The plaintiff often is not. He may have a weak case, brought in the hope of forcing a settlement. He has probably no money to pay his lawyer for trying it, and finds it hard to get together what is necessary to summon his witnesses and provide expert testimony as to the nature of his injuries.

Whenever it is tried, however, he is sure to want a jury, for if the case is a good one a jury is apt to give larger damages than a judge, and if a bad one a jury is less likely to appreciate its weakness.[Footnote: McCloskey v. Bell's Gap R. R. Co., 156 Pennsylvania State Reports, 254; 27 Atlantic Reporter, 246.] A jury trial is much slower than a trial before a judge, although the decision is apt to come more quickly. It also facilitates appeals by necessarily presenting more occasions for error. A judge in trying a cause, if evidence of doubtful competency is offered, can admit it provisionally and exclude it afterwards if, on deliberation, he thinks that it should not be considered. With a jury this is impossible. There must be an immediate ruling one way or the other. In the charge to a jury, also, opportunities are offered for exceptions which do not exist if the cause is to be decided by the judge alone. He does not have to instruct himself in public. He can study the case in private at his leisure.

A cause of delay formerly existed in several States which arose from the method of computing the costs taxable against the losing party. They included, by statute, a certain sum, say twenty-five or thirty-three cents a day for each day's attendance at court by the prevailing party. This was construed to mean each day during which the action lay in court, since upon any of them it might by possibility be called up, and the client was always represented by his attorney of record, a notice to whom was a notice to him. Christian Roselius, one of the leaders of the New Orleans bar in the nineteenth century, once said that he had spent a fourth of his life in the court house waiting for his cases to be called. The lawyers, as the duty of attendance fell on them, generally considered this allowance as their perquisite. An attorney with a large docket received, therefore, a number of dollars for every day the court sat, and the longer the term lasted or the more terms to which a cause was carried over, the larger was his gain if his client ultimately obtained judgment, and the defendant was of financial responsibility. This system was not universally discontinued until the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

A few States, by statute or constitutional provision, set a certain time within which a decision must be rendered after the trial. California gives ninety days; Idaho (Const., Art. V., Sec. 17) thirty. A sanction for the law sometimes provided is that the judge cannot draw his salary until he has made oath that he is in no default.

* * * * *



CHAPTER XXV

THE ATTITUDE OF THE PEOPLE TOWARD THE JUDICIARY

Americans are proud of their country and of their State. They are proud of their scheme of government, by which an imperial world-power has been created for certain national and international purposes, resting on a collection of States, each of which is an independent sovereignty, absolutely as respects the others, and for the most part as respects the United States. They are in the mass an educated and intelligent people. The public schools have thus far been found adequate to Americanizing the children of foreign immigrants. The colored population of the South stands largely by itself, and constitutes no active and self-moving force in matters of political concern. An educated and intelligent people living under a government of written law of their own making cannot but know how vital it is that this law should be fully guarded and fairly administered. Americans have become distrustful of their legislatures. They believe that much of their work is ill-considered, and that some of it has its source in corruption. They are far removed from the chief executive magistrates, and from the sphere in which they move. The President comes nearer to them than the Governor of their State because he stands for more, and personifies their country, but it is not from him that they look for peace and safety in the ordinary affairs of life and home. They look for these to the courts, and they know that they will seldom look in vain.

Only an educated and intelligent people can live under a written Constitution. It requires of those whom it governs a certain spirit of conservatism, a certain sentiment of reverence for ancient institutions. Our Constitutions are mainly the work of former generations. We may amend or recast them, but the substantial framework will remain the same. Our Declarations of Rights speak the language and the lessons of the eighteenth century. Their provisions are almost wholly aimed at our executives and legislators. They give guarantees which the judiciary only can enforce. No people can steadily prosper unless a just mean be preserved between reform and conservatism in the administration of the government. The courts stand for conservatism, but by their recognition of custom as law, and their free use of logic and analogy to develop law, they also keep a door open for the entrance of reform.

The courts also come very close to the people. They are to be found in every county and almost every township. They settle the estates of the dead. They protect the living. They act largely through juries made up of the people and returning to them after a brief term of public service.

All these considerations put Americans in a friendly attitude toward the judiciary. It makes less show of authority than the policeman or the militiaman. But the people feel that it has authority and is ready to exercise it always to secure that right be done. When a plain man who thinks that he has been wronged by another declares that he "will have the law on him," it expresses his conviction that he can get justice from the courts.

The creation of the judiciary of the United States was welcomed at the outset by all.[Footnote: See "Life of Peter Van Schaick," 435.] It was not until party feeling had become intense that Republicans found it difficult to look with approval on a force evidently becoming stronger every day, and that Jefferson could describe the Supreme Court as the sappers and miners who were gradually undermining the foundations of American liberty.[Footnote: Letter to Thomas Ritchie of Dec. 25, 1870. "Works of Thomas Jefferson," VII, 192.]

Of the political questions which engaged attention over the whole country from time to time from the adoption of the Constitution to the close of the Civil War, almost all bore some relation to the institution of slavery and derived their real vitality from that connection. Slavery depended on State laws. Unless the authority of each State to allow and regulate it were preserved, its countenance would be endangered. This was largely the source of the "State Rights" cry.

Almost all the powers which the United States possessed the States had lost. For thirteen years each had been in the position of a full sovereign. Its courts had exercised jurisdiction over all kinds of actions. Now a new set of courts had risen up having over many actions an equal jurisdiction, over some a superior one.[Footnote: See Chap. X.]

The case of Chisholm v. Georgia,[Footnote: 2 Dallas' Reports, 419.] in 1793, and the institution of similar suits against other States of the South showed that the Supreme Court of the United States claimed authority to render a money judgment against a State, which meant that it could then issue an execution to collect it by levying on the property of the State.

In 1798, the Alien and Sedition Laws were passed, and a crime previously cognizable exclusively in the State courts was made a subject of prosecution in those of the United States if it affected an officer of the United States. A member of Congress, Matthew Lyon, of Vermont, who was sentenced in the Fall of that year to a fine of $1,000 and four months in jail for writing of the President and Senate, that his message to Congress in 1797 was a bullying speech, which the Senate in a stupid answer had echoed with more servility than ever Geo. III. experienced from either house of parliament, served his time and paid the fine, but for the amount of the latter he was reimbursed by Congress in 1840.

The case of Jonathan Robbins[Footnote: See Chap. III.] in South Carolina in 1799, showed that the Circuit Court at the request of the President could surrender an American citizen to a foreign government to be carried off and tried for murder. This and the sentence of Lyon became immediately the subject of hot discussion in Congress, and both contributed to the political revolution which put Jefferson in the seat of Adams in 1801.

The creation by the outgoing party of places for eighteen new Circuit Judges appointed by Adams in the last month of his administration strengthened the popular feeling that the courts of the United States were too powerful. That Act was at once repealed,[Footnote: See Chaps. IX, XXII.] and also the provision for the next regular term of the Supreme Court. The latter measure was taken to prevent any legal proceedings in the Supreme Court to secure its intervention in behalf of the displaced judges.

The new circuit system had been swept away, but the full bench at Washington, headed by Marshall, remained. The unsuccessful impeachment of one of them followed in 1804.[Footnote: See Chap. III.]

His acquittal the next year, and that of a majority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,[Footnote: McMaster, "History of the United States," III, 159.] who were impeached there at the same time for punishing a libel on certain proceedings before that court by a sentence of imprisonment, satisfied all that it was practically impossible to secure the removal of a judge except for the gravest cause. Judicial independence had been secured by the very struggle to defeat it. What has won in any contest finds favor with the multitude. They admire a victor. From this time on the courts both of the United States and the States grew in public esteem. When those of the former seemed to trench on the fields of State sovereignty, particularly in the South, the inroad was resented.[Footnote: See letters of Marshall alluding to this, in "Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society," 2d Series, XIV, 325, 327, 329, 330.] In one Southern State it was even opposed by force.[Footnote: See Chap. X.] As late as 1854 the supremacy of the Supreme Court of the United States in expounding the federal Constitution was contested by the courts of a Northern State; there also in a case growing out of the system of slavery.[Footnote: Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard's Reports, 506.]

Another decision by the same tribunal of a similar nature—that in the Dred Scott case[Footnote: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 Howard's Reports, 393.]—greatly strengthened the confidence of the Southern people in the federal courts, and weakened that of the North.

It did much to bring on the Civil War, but the result of that struggle was to confirm the authority not only of the Supreme Court but of the Supreme Court as it was under Marshall and his original associates. In 1901, the centenary of his appointment was celebrated all over the country, North and South. Such a tribute was never paid before in any country to the memory of a judge. His services were commemorated for the very reason that led Jefferson to depreciate them—because they led to the establishment of a strong national government with a controlling judicial authority adequate to protect it within its sphere from interference or obstruction in any way by any State.

Confidence in the State courts has also been strengthened during the last century. It was greatly shaken at the time of the fall of the Federalists. They had lost the executive and legislative power, but they retained the judicial, and the Republicans found it hard to tolerate courts that represented the political ideas of a former generation. This continued long after the extinction of the Federalist party, and often extended to distrust of judges elected by the Republicans who were thought to have become affected by the influence of their senior associates.

In the New York constitutional convention of 1821, Peter R. Livingston appealed to the lawyers present to say "whether it has not been the case that when a man in the country of any political standing has had a suit depending at a circuit court, he has not consulted with his counsel to know what judge was to preside at the circuit; and whether he has not been frequently told that a political judge was to preside and it would not do to let the cause come on."[Footnote: Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, 618.] Who, he asked, were the present judges of their Supreme Court? "Judge Spencer came into office under a republican administration; Judge Van Ness was appointed by a mongrel council; and the elevation to the bench of Judge Platt was occasioned by the defection from the Republican ranks of a man elected to the Senate from the county of Dutchess, who acted the part of a political Judas, and sold his party. We have been bought and sold—there is not one of these men who would have been on the bench if our administration had been truly republican.... There is not a man in this Convention who is a republican of any standing or character who would like to have his liberty or property placed in the hands of a political judge of a different party."[Footnote: Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, 620.]

The judiciary may also have suffered somewhat in the esteem of dispassionate observers on account of its attitude in many of the States toward the financial enterprises in corporate form, in which so much money was made and lost in the first third of the nineteenth century. In commenting on a judicial opinion in a Southern bank case, the author of one of our leading American legal treatises, himself once a judge, has referred to this period in these plain words:

Decisions of this kind, which were not infrequent in the era of State banks of issue, can only be "reconciled" with modern holdings in view of the well-known fact that nearly all the politicians were creditors of those political banks, by notes often renewed, at the time when they finally suspended, and that all the judges were politicians. It can hardly be doubted that in many of those semi-barbarous decisions the judges were either rendering decisions to exonerate themselves from their liabilities to the insolvent banks or to exonerate powerful and influential politicians upon whom they depended for the tenure of their offices.[Footnote: Thompson on "Private Corporations," V, p. 5306.]

It is quite probable that an insensible bias in favor of friends and neighbors may have had its share in producing the judgments to which reference was thus made, but quite improbable that they were the fruit of baser motives. Independently of other considerations, every judge is watched by sharp eyes in every step which he may take in the progress of a cause. He acts in view of the bar at large, and of two of their number in particular, one of whom probably will be disappointed by his decision, and solicitous to ascertain and employ every reasonable ground for overturning it.

The Bar Association of the country have exercised a large influence during the past thirty years in maintaining public confidence in the purity of the bench.

It is extremely rare that suspicion of corruption attaches to a judge; and rarer still that it attaches justly. Jurors are occasionally found who are guilty of it, and more who, without being chargeable with so black a crime, are more interested in serving a friend than in doing justice. As a whole, however, American courts are clean-handed throughout, and the people know it.

The judiciary has been popularized in most States by constitutional provisions replacing tenure during good behavior by stated terms of years, and appointment by the Governor or legislature by election by the people.

The powers of judges have been on the whole increased. The only matter in which they have been substantially cut down is that of punishment for contempt. Serious attempts have been made to abridge their jurisdiction over injunctions, but without success. These attacks have come from those representing certain labor unions. The more thorough organization of working-men in all trades and callings during the last half century, and the development of collectivism as a working theory, have produced a class of leaders among them who regard the courts as manned by representatives of capital and controlled in the interests of capital.[Footnote: The number of the Pennsylvania Grange News for Sept., 1904, states this view at length.] As a judicial office can only be properly filled by one who has had a legal education and as, aside from a few petty magistrates and local tribunals, practically all our judges are trained lawyers, it necessarily follows that they cannot belong to the class of working-men in the general acceptation of that term. Their education has cost money and is generally the fruit of capital. The judges of the higher courts are usually men of some means. If they were not, they could not have afforded to accept their places. But the people at large do not believe that only the poor man can be relied on to deal justly on the bench. The mass of working-men do not believe it. They do believe that courts have too much power over them in their associated relations. They are in favor of cutting off the right of issuing injunctions to suppress boycotts or "picketing" in case of strikes. But they know that it is from the legislatures and not from the courts that this must be sought.

The federal judges stand higher in public estimation than the State judges of corresponding rank. This is partly on account of the paramount authority of the government which they represent. It is partly also because there are none of them who occupy the lower grades of judicial station with a petty jurisdiction over petty controversies. It is more because of their permanence of tenure. This removes them from that field of criticism which surrounds every public officer who holds for a term limited in duration, and is always in the position of a candidate for re-appointment.

Our methods of judicial appointment are not such as always to exclude political feeling from the bench either of the States or of the United States, but the people know that there is less of it there than in any other department of governmental action.

President Hadley of Yale University has thus expressed what is the general view of the work of the courts held by thoughtful men in the United States; and it is they who in the long run form and lead public opinion.

"On the whole, federal and State courts alike have been not only a protection, but the one really efficient protection of minority interests against oppression by the majority.... It has more than once happened that an impatient majority has denounced these courts as instruments of partisanship. The anti-slavery leaders, the soft money leaders, and the labor leaders have in turn taken exception to their utterances, and even ventured to impugn their motives. But I think that most intelligent men who know the history of the country will say that our courts have been the real bulwarks of American liberty; and that while Hamilton and his associates would be somewhat disappointed in the working of the machinery of legislation and administration if they could see it in its present shape, they would be filled with admiration at the work which has been accomplished by the judiciary. I believe it to be the judgment of sober-minded men that the courts have furnished the agency which has guarded us against excesses, and have saved the American republic from the necessity of repeating the successive revolutionary experiences which France underwent before she could attain to a stable democracy."[Footnote: "Freedom and Responsibility," 23, 24.]

This confidence in and respect for the judiciary as a whole has increased with the general advance of the country in population and wealth. There have been larger questions with which to deal, and the courts have been found adequate to the task. But at the same time the personal consequence and reputation of every individual American judge has been steadily decreasing. As States multiply and the range of litigation widens, the work of judicial exposition of legal principles comes to be shared by so many hands that what any one man does is of comparatively small account. There is no room for star players upon the stage. Broad as it is, it is too crowded for one to make a conspicuous place for himself and stand as Marshall or Story, Kent or Parsons, did, apart from his fellows. Popular confidence is now not placed in courts because this or that man is the ruling spirit in them. It is impersonal and attaches itself to the institution of the judiciary as, all things considered, the best guaranty of good government in the United States.

This spirit of confidence is, of course, not universal and unqualified. It is often not found in bodies of working men, associated as Labor Unions. They have repeatedly found a court enforcing public order in a way that interfered with their manner of conducting a strike. They have been met by injunctions, and more often by criminal prosecutions. The membership of a Labor Union, in many parts of the country, is apt to be largely of foreign birth. The leaders not infrequently know little of the English language and less of American institutions. They have been led, in their native land, to regard the law and its officers as their enemies, and they look at them in the same way here. It is believed, however, that a large majority of the Unions regard them with respect, and it is certain that such is the prevailing feeling of non-union men.

But that the public trust in our judges is less than it was when the first edition of this work was published,[Footnote: See supra, page 340.] is indicated by the favor with which, in many quarters, the doctrine of the "judicial recall" has been received. The dangers incident to its practice are obvious, and seem far to outweigh any attending advantages.

In the United States, of all lands on the face of the earth, it is important that the judges should act with resolution and without thought of the consequences personal to themselves. Elsewhere in form, but here only in fact, are judges armed with the power of declaring legislative action void which is in conflict with a higher form of law, that proceeded directly from the people, and mainly from the people of a former generation. To expose one who exercises this power to immediate displacement, by a popular vote—largely, perhaps, composed of his political opponents—is to invite the enactment of questionable statutes, and still worse—to weaken the attractions of the bench for able and honest men. Our judicial terms, in most of the States, are already too brief for the public good. To make them determinable at the will of the electoral constituency tends powerfully to keep good lawyers at the bar, who might otherwise have done honor to a judicial station.

THE END