Government in the United States, National, State and Local

The Judges of Courts.—Qualifications.– Generally no qualifications for the judicial office are prescribed by law, except in a few states where it is required that judges shall be lawyers or be "learned in the law." As a matter of fact, however, judges are nearly always lawyers, except in the case of justices of the peace and police magistrates, where extensive knowledge of the law is not essential.

Terms of Office.– The terms of the judges vary widely among the different states. In the early days of our history, the judges generally held their offices during good behavior or until the attainment of a certain age, usually sixty or seventy years. With the growth of democracy, however, most of the states came to adopt short terms for judicial as well as for other public officials. Only in Massachusetts and Rhode Island do the judges of the highest court now serve practically for life. In New Hampshire they serve until they are 70 years of age. Elsewhere the tenure varies from two years, in Vermont, to twenty-one years, in Pennsylvania. In Maryland, the tenure is fifteen years; in New York, fourteen; in several, it is twelve, in some nine, in many six. The advantage of a long term is that it enables the judges to acquire experience and renders them less affected by political influence and popular clamor.

Methods of Choosing the Judges.– In early times the judges were chosen either by the legislature or by the governor. Choice by the legislature was objectionable because it often resulted in selection by political caucuses and in a parceling of the judgeships among the different counties or sections of the state. Appointment by the governor was objectionable to many because it often resulted in the choice of political favorites. Most of the states, therefore, abandoned these methods of choice for popular election, Mississippi in 1832 being the first state to adopt this method. Only in Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine, are the higher judges now appointed by the governor, – subject to the confirmation of the state senate or the legislature, – and only in Rhode Island, Vermont, South Carolina, and Virginia are they elected by the legislature. In all the other states they are elected by the people.

The arguments in favor of popular election are that it is more in harmony with the principles of popular government, and, it is claimed by some, tends to secure a higher class of judges, thus doing away with the evils of executive appointment and of legislative choice described above. The objection to this method, however, is that it compels judicial candidates to engage in political contests, and by making their tenures dependent upon popular favor subjects them to the temptation of shaping their decisions to meet the approval of the people, who, obviously, are not always qualified to judge of the soundness of judicial decisions involving intricate questions of law. Such a method, it is claimed by some, tends to secure the election of able politicians rather than of able judges.

Compensation of the Judges.– The pay of the judges, like their terms of service, varies widely among the different states. The salary paid the judges of the highest court is not much more or less than the governor's salary. The highest salary paid in any state to the judges of the highest court is $13,700 per year, in the state of New York,17 a salary about as large as that of the justices of the United States Supreme Court. In Illinois and a few other states, the justices of the supreme court receive $10,000 a year. Many states pay less than $5,000 a year. This scale of salaries is very low as compared with those in England, where the highest judges receive $25,000, and the lowest, the county judges, $7,500 a year. A few states have provided a system of pensions for their higher judges who have served a certain number of years or who have reached a certain age, after which they are allowed or compelled to retire, but this provision has not yet become general.

Trial of Civil Cases.– The cases brought before the courts for trial are of two general classes: (1) civil actions and (2) criminal actions. A civil action is a suit brought for the enforcement of a private right or to secure compensation for damages on account of injuries sustained through the violation of one's rights. Thus a creditor sues a debtor for refusing to pay a debt; an owner sues to recover property which has been wrongfully taken from him; a householder brings an action against his neighbor for trespassing upon his premises; and so on. The person who brings the action is called the plaintiff; the one against whom it is brought, the defendant; and the two together are known as the parties to the action.

Beginning of a Civil Case.– A civil suit is usually started by the filing of a complaint containing a statement of the facts, with the court, which then issues a summons directing the sheriff or constable to notify the defendant to appear and make answer. If the plaintiff is a creditor and has reason to believe that the defendant is preparing to dispose of his property with the intention of defrauding him, he may ask the court to issue a writ of attachment authorizing the sheriff to take possession of the property. Or if the defendant is in wrongful possession of property belonging to the plaintiff the latter may ask the court to issue a writ of replevin requiring the officers to seize the property and turn it over to the plaintiff. In both cases, however, the plaintiff is required to give a bond for the costs of the suit and for the return of the property in case the court should decide that it does not properly belong to him. The defendant now makes an answer or plea in which he denies the charges of the plaintiff as a whole or in part, or admits their truth but denies the right of action, or maintains that the court has no jurisdiction, or pleads something else in bar of the action. The complaint of the plaintiff and the answer of the defendant are known as the pleadings.

The Trial.– The issue is now joined and the case is ready for trial. If it is a suit in equity, it is tried by the judge alone without a jury. If it is a suit at law, either party may demand a jury, but if both parties agree to waive a jury trial, the case is tried by the judge alone. Frequently civil cases are tried without juries, the parties preferring to leave the decision to the judge. If, however, a jury trial is preferred, a list of qualified persons is prepared and from this list twelve persons, or six, as the parties may agree upon, are selected to try the case. After the jury is sworn the attorney for the plaintiff generally makes a statement of the facts upon which he rests his case. He then calls his witnesses, who testify to their knowledge of the facts as they are questioned by counsel. When the attorney for the plaintiff has completed the examination of each witness, the attorney for the defendant is allowed to cross-examine him. Witnesses are required to confine their testimony to what they know to be the truth, and are not permitted to tell what they believe to be true or what they have learned from mere hearsay.

After the plaintiff has introduced all his evidence, the defendant's case is presented in a like manner, the counsel for the plaintiff this time conducting the cross-examination. When the evidence for the defendant is all in, the plaintiff may introduce evidence in rebuttal, after which the defendant may do likewise. The next step is the argument of counsel. The attorney for each side addresses the jury and endeavors to convince it that the evidence sustains the facts which he has undertaken to prove. The burden of proof in civil cases is usually on the plaintiff, and his attorney generally has the privilege of closing the argument. If the plaintiff has failed to make out a case the judge may dismiss the suit without giving the case to the jury, or if the evidence is such as to admit of but one conclusion, the judge may direct the jury to return a verdict in accordance therewith. But if the evidence leaves the question as to the facts in doubt, the case is given to the jury and it alone can make the decision. Before sending the jury to their room the judge instructs them as to the law applicable to the case, but generally in this country he cannot comment on the weight of the evidence or express any opinion as to the facts. The jury, after receiving its instructions, retires from the court room and deliberates in secret. If, after a reasonable time, the jurymen cannot agree upon a verdict they so report to the judge and are discharged, and the trial must be gone through with again.

Judgment; Execution. – After the return of the verdict, the judge enters judgment in accordance therewith. In most civil cases the judgment, if for the plaintiff, requires the defendant to pay him a certain sum of money as a compensation for the damages he has sustained. If he refuses to pay, an "execution" is issued, that is, the sheriff is required to seize and sell a sufficient amount of the defendant's property to satisfy the judgment. If the suit is one in equity the "decree," as the decision is called, is not usually for the payment of damages but is a command to the defendant to do a specific thing, as, for example, to carry out a contract or to pay a debt; or to refrain from doing something, such as maintaining a nuisance to the injury of the defendant.

Appeal.– After the verdict has been rendered, the losing party may generally take an appeal to a higher court on the ground that errors were committed by the judge in the course of the trial, as, for example, the admission of improper evidence or the exclusion of proper evidence; or because the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. The higher court either affirms the judgment of the lower court or reverses it. If it affirms the judgment, it must then be carried out; if it reverses the judgment a new trial is granted and the whole procedure is gone through again.

Trial of Criminal Cases.– Criminal actions, unlike civil actions, are brought, not by the injured party, but by the state whose peace and dignity have been violated by the act complained of. The officer who brings the action in the name of the state is called the prosecuting attorney, the district attorney, or the state's attorney. He conducts preliminary investigations into crimes and presents cases to the grand jury for indictment. If the grand jury returns the indictment, that is, decides that the accused shall be held for trial, the prosecuting officer takes charge of the case and conducts it for the state.

The Arrest.– Usually the first step in the trial of a person charged with crime is to cause his arrest. The person injured, or any one else who may have knowledge of the crime, appears before a magistrate and makes a complaint setting forth the facts in regard to the crime. If the magistrate is satisfied as to the truth of the complaint, he issues a warrant commanding the sheriff or some other police officer to arrest the accused. The warrant must particularly describe the offense, the place where committed, and the circumstances under which it was committed, and must give the name of the person to be arrested. But in some cases an arrest may be made without a warrant, as when an offender is seen committing a crime or when an officer has good reason to believe that the person who is charged with committing a crime is the guilty person. In practice, policemen frequently arrest on mere suspicion, and if they do so in good faith they will rarely be held liable for damages. Any private individual, as well as an officer, may arrest without warrant a person whom he sees committing a crime. He may also arrest a person whom he suspects of having committed a capital crime, although without personal knowledge of his guilt.18

Commitment.– When arrested the accused is brought before a justice of the peace and examined. If the justice of the peace, after such examination, believes that the accused should be held for trial, he is committed to jail. If the offense is a minor one it can be tried by the justice of the peace. If it is a more serious crime the justice of the peace can hold the offender to await the action of the grand jury.

Habeas Corpus Proceedings.– If at any time it is alleged that a person is unlawfully deprived of his liberty, a judge may issue a writ of habeas corpus and inquire into the case. In this way an accused person may be set free if there is no sufficient reason for holding him.

Bail.– If the offense is not a capital one, the accused can secure his release from the jail while awaiting trial by giving bail. That is, he can get one or more persons to obligate themselves to pay to the state a certain sum of money should he fail to appear for the trial at the time set. Such persons are called sureties, and they have a certain power of control over the accused as a means of insuring his appearance for the trial. The constitutions of all the states allow the privilege of bail except in capital cases, and they all declare that the amount of bail required shall not be excessive, that is, shall not be more than is sufficient to insure the appearance of the accused for trial. What this amount is must be determined by the judge according to his own discretion, due regard being paid to the gravity of the offense, the nature of the punishment, and the wealth of the defendant or his friends. If the offender has been bound over to await the action of the grand jury, the next step in the proceedings is the indictment.

The Grand Jury is one of the ancient institutions of the common law. The number of persons constituting the grand jury was originally twenty-three, but many of the states have changed this, a common number being fifteen. The grand jury is chosen by lot from a carefully prepared list of persons in the county, qualified to serve. The members are sworn in on the first day of the term of court and are then "charged" by the judge to make a diligent inquiry into all cases of crime that have been committed in the county, and to return indictments against such persons as in their opinion should be held for trial. They then retire to their room and conduct their investigations in secret.

The Indictment.– It must be remembered that the procedure of a grand jury is not in the nature of a trial of the accused; it is only an inquiry to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence of guilt to warrant his being put on trial. In conducting this investigation, the grand jury hears only one side of the case, that of the prosecution, neither the accused or his witnesses being heard. The prosecuting attorney attends the sessions of the grand jury and aids it in the conduct of its inquiries. He prepares the indictment and it is often upon his recommendation that the grand jury decides to indict or not to indict. In some states the procedure of indictment by grand jury for all offenses, or for all except the most serious ones, has been done away with, the accusation taking the form of an "information" filed by the prosecuting attorney. One of the reasons given for abolishing the grand jury is that it is often a source of delay since it can be called only when the court is in session, and in some communities the court is not in session for long periods in every year.

The Arraignment.– After the accused has been indicted the next step is to bring him before the court and arraign him. The charge is first read to him and he is directed to plead. If he pleads guilty, no further action is taken and the judge imposes the sentence. If he pleads not guilty, the trial proceeds. If he has no counsel to defend him, the court appoints some member of the local bar to act as his attorney, and the lawyer so designated is under a professional obligation to undertake the defense and do all in his power to clear him. In this way the murderer of President McKinley was enabled to have the benefit of counsel. Many writers on criminal law, indeed, contend that the state ought to employ regular public defenders for accused persons just as it employs public prosecutors, since it should be equally interested in seeing an innocent man acquitted as in seeing a guilty one convicted.19

Selection of the Jury.– The next step is the impaneling of a jury of twelve persons to try the case. The law requires that the jury shall be selected from the community in which the offense was committed, in order that the accused may have the benefit of any good reputation which he may enjoy among his neighbors. The jury is chosen by lot from a list of persons qualified to perform jury service, and the jurymen are sworn to return a verdict according to the law and the evidence. Each side is allowed to "challenge," that is, ask the court to reject, any juror who has formed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused or who is evidently prejudiced. In addition, each may reject a certain number of jurors "peremptorily," that is, without assigning a cause.

The Trial.– After the jury has been impaneled, the prosecuting attorney opens the trial by reciting the facts of the case and stating the evidence upon which he expects to establish the guilt of the accused, for the law presumes the prisoner to be innocent, and the burden of proof to show the contrary rests upon the state. The procedure of examining and cross-examining the witnesses is substantially the same as in the trial of civil cases. There are well-established rules in regard to the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached to it, and if the judge commits an error in admitting improper evidence or in excluding evidence that should have been admitted in the interests of the accused, the prisoner may, if convicted, have the verdict set aside by a higher court and a new trial granted him. One of the rules of procedure is that the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence produced, that the accused is guilty.

Verdict; Sentence.– After being charged by the judge as to the law applicable to the case, the jury retire to a room where they are kept in close confinement until they reach a unanimous verdict. If they cannot reach an agreement, they notify the judge, who, if satisfied that there is no longer any possibility of an agreement, discharges them; then the accused may be tried again before another jury. If a verdict of not guilty is returned, the court orders the prisoner to be set free; if a conviction is found, sentence is imposed and the punishment must be carried out by the sheriff or some other officer. The usual punishment is fine, imprisonment in the county jail or state penitentiary, or death inflicted by hanging or electrocution. In a few states, notably Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, and Kansas, punishment by death has been abolished.

Probation; Reformation.– Imprisonment is generally for a specified period, though recently in a number of states the indeterminate sentence has been provided, that is, the judge is allowed to sentence the offender for an indefinite period, the length of which will depend upon the behavior of the prisoner and on the promise which he may show of leading a better life after being released. When thus released he may be placed on probation and required to report from time to time to a probation officer in order to show that his conduct is satisfactory. If unsatisfactory, he may be taken up and remanded to prison. The tendency now in all enlightened countries is to adopt a system of punishment that will not only serve as a deterrent to crime but at the same time help to reform the criminal and make a better citizen of him. The old idea that the purpose of punishment was revenge or retribution has nearly everywhere disappeared, and in place of the severities of the old criminal code we have introduced humane and modern methods which are probably just as effective in deterring others from wrongdoing, and besides conduce to the reformation of many unfortunate criminals.

References.– Baldwin, The American Judiciary, chs. viii, xii, xiv, xv, xvii, xxii. Beard, American Government and Politics, ch. xxvi. Bryce, The American Commonwealth (abridged edition), ch. xli. Hart, Actual Government, ch. ix. McCleary, Studies in Civics, chs. ii, vii. Willoughby, Rights and Duties of Citizenship, ch. vii.

Illustrative Material.– 1. The legislative manual or blue book of the state. 2. A map showing the division of the state into judicial districts. 3. Copies of legal instruments, such as warrants of arrest, indictments, subpœnas, summonses, etc.

Research Questions

1. What are the several grades of courts in your state? In what judicial district or circuit do you live? Who is the judge for that district or circuit?

2. What are the terms of the supreme court justices? The circuit or district judges? The county judges? Do you think these terms are too short? Would a good behavior term be better?

3. What is the pay of judges in your state? Do you think these salaries are large enough to attract the best lawyers of the state? Are the salaries fixed by the constitution or by act of the legislature?

4. How are the judges chosen? Has the existing method given satisfaction? Do you think judges should engage in politics? Where they are chosen by popular election, should they canvass the district or state as other candidates do?

5. Are there separate chancery (equity) courts in your state? separate probate courts? separate juvenile courts? If not, what courts have jurisdiction of such matters as belong to such courts?

6. How are justices of the peace in your state chosen? What is the extent of their jurisdiction in civil cases? in criminal cases? What is the method of compensating justices of the peace?

7. How often is the circuit court held in your district? How often the county court?

8. How are juries selected in your state? How could a better class of jurors be selected? Do the good citizens show a disposition to shirk jury duty? What are the merits and demerits of the jury system? Do you think a unanimous verdict ought to be required in criminal cases?

9. Is the grand jury retained in your state for making indictments? If not, how are indictments prepared? What is the difference between an indictment and an information?

10. Why are citizens never justified in resorting to lynch law even when there is a flagrant miscarriage of justice? Has there ever been a case of lynching in your county?

11. What are some of the causes for the "delays of the law"? How could delays be shortened and the trial of cases made more prompt?

12. What are the qualities of a good judge? Upon whom are the rights of the people most dependent, the executive officers or the judges?

CHAPTER VII

SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS

Nature of the Elective Franchise.– The right of suffrage, that is, the right to take part in the choice of public officials, is sometimes said to be a natural and inherent right of the citizen, but in practice no state acts upon such a principle. The better opinion, as well as the almost universal practice, is that suffrage is not at all a matter of right, but a privilege bestowed by the state upon those of its citizens who are qualified to exercise it intelligently and for the public good. No state allows all its citizens to vote; all the states restrict the privilege to those who are at least twenty-one years of age; all confine the privilege to those who are bona fide residents of the community; and some require educational, property, and other qualifications of various kinds. On the other hand, eight states allow aliens who have formally declared their intention of becoming citizens, to vote equally with citizens in all elections.20 The terms "voter" and "citizen," therefore, are not identical or synonymous.

Existing Qualifications for Voting.– In the early days of our history restrictions on the voting privilege were much more numerous and stringent than now. Most of the early constitutions limited the privilege to property owners, and some prescribed religious tests in addition. It is estimated that at the beginning of the nineteenth century not more than one person in twenty had the right to vote, whereas now probably the proportion is two in five.