north america-2-第69章
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！
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 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 W
