Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

county a certain number of citizens, who have the right of serving as jurymen, and who are supposed to be capable of exercising their functions. These magistrates, being themselves elective, excite no distrust; their powers, like those of most republican magistrates, are very extensive and very arbitrary, and they frequently make use of them to remove unworthy or incompetent jurymen. The names of the jurymen, thus chosen, are transmitted to the county court; and the jury, who have to decide any affair, are drawn by lot from the whole list of names.'

Here our and their systems do not essentially differ. It is necessary that the office of juryman, which is, in fact, a judicial office, should devolve only on individuals that are competent by intelligence, integrity, and independence, to exercise it; and, in both England and America, probably sufficient care is taken to secure that result. Certainly, in England, none of us would deem our liberties more secure, and expect to find justice better administered, were the office to descend lower, and become, as some would have the suffrage to be,-universal.

In England, the independence of the judges is secured by the statute 1st George III., c. 23, which was enacted at the earnest recommendation of his Majesty, soon after his accession to the throne, who declared that " he looked upon the independence and uprightness of the judges as essential to the impartial administration of justice; as one of the best securities of the rights and liberties of his subjects; and as most conducive to the honour of the crown." The English judges are appointed by the crown, but hold their offices permanently; their full salaries are secured to them, and they can only be removed for misconduct, on the address of both houses of parliament. From the following remarks of M. De Tocqueville, it appears

happen when the evil consequences of any enactment are experienced. The judge tries the cause, most commonly, as affecting the interests of a private individual; he finds the law to be unconstitutional, and he decides in conformity with the constitution, and, as if the law had never been enacted, thus silently passing sentence against that measure of the legislature and correcting its error. The law is not by this means abolished; but it cannot be enforced, and if the decision is confirmed on future occasions, it must eventually be repealed. This power of the supreme judiciary forms a valuable and really effectual check to the errors and inconsistencies of the legislative assemblies of the union. The judges have usually had a high reputation for integrity and talent; the decisions of the supreme court are received with much respect, and they tend essentially to harmonize the otherwise discordant elements of the confederation.

"In the nations of Europe," says M. De Tocqueville, "the courts of justice are only called upon to try the controversies of private individuals, but the supreme court of the United States summons sovereign powers to its bar. When the clerk of the court advances on the step of the tribunal, and simply says, 'The state of New York versus the state of Ohio,' it is impossible not to feel that the court which he addresses is no ordinary body; and when it is recollected that one of these parties represents one million, and the other, two millions of men, one is struck by the responsibility of the seven judges, whose decision is about to satisfy or to disappoint so large a number of their fellowcitizens. The peace, the prosperity, and the very existence of the union are vested in the hands of the seven judges. Without their active co-operation the constitution would be a dead letter: the executive appeals to them for assistance against the encroach

K

fellow citizens of the same state are almost exclusively tried before its own tribunals.

The whole union is divided into districts, in each of which a federal judge resides; and his court is named a'district court.' The supreme federal court, consisting of the seven judges, holds its session at Washington. It has original jurisdiction in a few cases, but its chief business is the trial of appeals from the circuit courts, which are held in the different states twice a year. Causes before the state courts, in which any point of constitutional law arises, may be brought under the review of the supreme federal court, which may affirm or reverse their decisions. But in the case of reversal the superior court's decision is not absolutely final, as in the British house of lords, but a mandate is issued to the state court, directing it to conform its judgment to that of the supreme court. To that important tribunal, therefore, all questions concerning the proper interpretation of the written constitution of the United States must be submitted.

But in America, the constitution binds the legislalature as well as the citizens. It may be altered by the will of the people in certain specified cases, and according to established rules; yet, as a constitutional code, it is the supreme law. The American judges, consequently, obey the constitution rather than any enactment of the legislature; and they may, and often do, refuse to apply such laws as appear to them to be inconsistent with the constitution. This gives them immense political influence, and the manner in which they exercise it has been very skilfully arranged by the lawgivers who framed the constitution.

The judge is not at liberty to step out of his sphere, and, of his own act to point out an inconsistency between any law and the constitution. He does so only when a special case is brought before him. This will

happen when the evil consequences of any enactment are experienced. The judge tries the cause, most commonly, as affecting the interests of a private individual; he finds the law to be unconstitutional, and he decides in conformity with the constitution, and, as if the law had never been enacted, thus silently passing sentence against that measure of the legislature and correcting its error. The law is not by this means abolished; but it cannot be enforced, and if the decision is confirmed on future occasions, it must eventually be repealed. This power of the supreme judiciary forms a valuable and really effectual check to the errors and inconsistencies of the legislative assemblies of the union. The judges have usually had a high reputation for integrity and talent; the decisions of the supreme court are received with much respect, and they tend essentially to harmonize the otherwise discordant elements of the confederation.

"In the nations of Europe," says M. De Tocqueville, "the courts of justice are only called upon to try the controversies of private individuals, but the supreme court of the United States summons sovereign powers to its bar. When the clerk of the court advances on the step of the tribunal, and simply says, "The state of New York versus the state of Ohio,' it is impossible not to feel that the court which he addresses is no ordinary body; and when it is recollected that one of these parties represents one million, and the other, two millions of men, one is struck by the responsibility of the seven judges, whose decision is about to satisfy or to disappoint so large a number of their fellowcitizens. The peace, the prosperity, and the very existence of the union are vested in the hands of the seven judges. Without their active co-operation the constitution would be a dead letter: the executive appeals to them for assistance against the encroach

K

ments of the legislative powers; the legislature demands their protection from the designs of the executive; they defend the union from the disobedience of the states, the states from the exaggerated claims of the union, the public interest against the claims of private citizens, and the conservative spirit of order against the fleeting innovations of democracy. Their power is enormous, but it is clothed in the authority of public opinion. They are the all-powerful guardians of a people which respects law; but they would be impotent against popular neglect or popular contempt. The force of public opinion is the most intractable of agents, because its exact limits cannot be defined: and it is not less dangerous to exceed, than to remain below the boundary prescribed. The federal judges must not only be good citizens, and men possessed of that information and integrity which are indispensable to magistrates, but they must be statesmen,-politicians, not unread in the signs of the times, not afraid to brave the obstacles which can be subdued, nor slow to turn aside such encroaching elements as may threaten the supremacy of the union, and the obedience which is due to the laws. The President, who exercises a limited power, may err without causing great mischief in the state. Congress decide amiss without destroying the union, because the electoral body in which Congress originates may cause it to retract its decision by changing its members. But if the supreme court is ever composed of imprudent men or bad citizens, the union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war. The real cause of this danger, however, does not lie in the constitution of the tribunal, but in the very nature of federal governments."

may

The English judges have no power to dispense with an act of parliament, on the plea that it is unconstitutional. The three estates of the realm, whose con

« AnteriorContinuar »