In 1903, a justice of the peace in one of our largest cities resigned his office and made his reasons public. They were that no one could afford to hold it who was not willing to stoop to unworthy practices. Lawyers having a large collection practice, who were the best customers at such a shop of justice, threw their business where they could get it done most cheaply. They expected the justice of the peace whom they favored to favor them. One way was by making them a discount on his legal fees.
There was a compet.i.tion among the justices for business on these terms, and the lowest bidder generally got it. Blank writs of summons, even, signed by the justice would be sold at so much a dozen, to be filled in to suit the attorneys.
A system in which such things are possible is inherently vicious, and only endurable because the defeated party can always appeal and have a new trial before a higher court. That relief, however, is expensive. Judgments ought to be just in the first instance, and it is the business of governments to ensure this, so far as they reasonably can.
The natural remedy would seem to be to have fewer justices of the peace who are authorized to try cases and to pay them a fixed salary. Better men could thus be had and independence of action promoted. That this is not done comes mainly from the feeling that small controversies ought to be settled by a neighborhood court; that any man of good common sense can generally deal with them as well as a lawyer; and that to salary every justice would be an unreasonable burden to impose on the taxpayer. The system is also an ancient one; it works well with honest men; and the people have an inherited attachment for it.
In a few States a sharp line of division is drawn between courts of law and courts of equity. This distinction was inherited from England, though it has been for most purposes abolished there by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875. It originated in the royal prerogative of interposing to do justice between private individuals in cases of an extraordinary character when the regular courts had no power to grant the necessary relief. The King was accustomed to refer requests for such action on his part to his princ.i.p.al secretary and councillor. The next step was to address the request directly to this officer, who was styled the Chancellor. If a man were acting toward another in a way that was against good conscience, though without absolutely transgressing any settled rule of law, the Chancellor could compel him to desist. If the legal t.i.tle to land had been conveyed to one for the use of another, and the holder of this t.i.tle refused to recognize the beneficial interest to serve which he had been invested with it, the Chancellor could bring him to account, although the common law would give no remedy. Soon, whenever a man seemed to have justice on his side, but not law, it was deemed a case for the Chancellor, or a case in chancery.
Relief was given because it was equitable to give it, and so it was called relief in equity. The jurisdiction expanded.
Wherever there was a right, but no adequate remedy at law, the Court of Chancery, or, as it was oftener called, of equity, was recognized as competent to step in and do justice.
The Chancellor had often been an ecclesiastic. He was apt to be more familiar with canon law and civil law than with the common law. The justice which he administered came from the Crown, not from the people. The people spoke through a jury, called in law language "the country." The Chancellor spoke for himself. If he called in the aid of a jury, it was to advise him, not, as in a common law court, to make a final decision as to the question submitted to it.
The result came to be that for several hundred years, embracing the whole colonial period, England had two distinct sets of courts, acting under different rules, and each trying a different kind of cases. Those involving questions of trust, account, fraud, mistake or accident, were the princ.i.p.al subjects of equitable jurisdiction. Equity also could prevent wrongs, while law could only punish them.[Footnote: See Chap. XX.] It was not, however, always easy to mark the line between cases, and say which belonged in the common law tribunals and which in those of chancery. Many an action failed, not because there was no just cause of action, but because it had been brought in the wrong court.
In the American colonies, and for many years in the States which succeeded them, these distinctions of procedure were generally observed.[Footnote: In Pennsylvania the courts largely disregarded them and a.s.serted that equity was a part of its common law. See Myers _v._ South Bethlehem, 149 Pennsylvania State Reports, 85, 24 Atlantic Reporter, 280.] In some there were, in some there still are, separate courts of equity held by a Chancellor, aided, if necessary, by Vice-Chancellors. In others two dockets or lists of cases were (and in a number of them still are) kept in the same court, and the same judge disposed of those on one docket as a court of equity and of those on the other as a court of law.
Such a system is intrinsically absurd. It has been maintained by whatever States yet tolerate it for two reasons: because the lawyers and the community are used to it, and because it furnishes a convenient test of any claim of right to a jury trial. All our State Const.i.tutions have some provision for maintaining such rights, but they do not define the cases in which the right exists. That is left to the courts, and their rule is that it cannot be claimed in cases that call for equitable as distinguished from legal relief.
In most of our States and Territories legal and equitable causes of action or defenses may now be joined, and legal and equitable relief given in one suit. This reform in procedure was largely due to the labors of David Dudley Field, and became general throughout the country during the last half of the nineteenth century. The result has been that separate courts of equity are now to be found only in a few States.
Congress has made use of the State courts in certain cases as part of the machinery of the federal government. While by the Const.i.tution "the judicial power of the United States" can only be vested in the courts of the United States, the phrase as thus used refers only to the power of judging causes in courts of record. State courts and magistrates can therefore be given jurisdiction by Congress over any acts in aid of the functions of the United States, the supervision of which may be regarded as ministerial, or as incidental to judicial power rather than a part of it. They have received it in this way with respect to such matters as seizure of deserters from a merchantman, the arrest and commitment or bail of offenders against the criminal laws of the United States, the taking of affidavits and depositions for use in proceedings before federal authorities, and the naturalization of aliens.[Footnote: Robertson _v._ Baldwin, 165 U. S. Reports, 275.]
State courts also have jurisdiction over any civil action to enforce a right given by the laws of the United States, unless Congress has otherwise provided. They const.i.tute together with the federal courts one general judicial system for the whole country.[Footnote: Cluflin _v._ Houseman, 93 U. S. Reports, 130, 137; Calvin v. Huntley, 178 Ma.s.s. Reports, 29; 59 Northeastern Reporter, 435.]
Almost all American courts are known as "courts of record." A court of record, in modern parlance, is one which tries causes between parties and is required to keep a full official and permanent record of its disposition of them. For this purpose most courts are furnished with a recording officer, called the clerk. His record is the only evidence of their judgments and cannot be contradicted or impeached in any collateral proceeding.
If there is any error in it, it can only be shown on a direct proceeding brought to correct it.
Justices of the peace, when authorized to try causes, act only in small matters and in a summary way. In most States they are not, when exercising this function, deemed to const.i.tute a court of record. Nor is any court, even though furnished with a clerk, if its proceedings are not recorded in full, but simply made the subject of brief notes or minutes,[Footnote: Hutkoff _v._ Demorest, 104 N. Y. Reports, 655; 10 Northeastern Reporter, 535.]
unless there is a statute or local practice giving such notes or minutes the effect of a record.
A court of record has inherent power to preserve order in proceedings before it[Footnote: See Chap. XX.] and, unless other provision be made by law, to appoint a crier or other officer to attend upon its sessions. By statute it is commonly made the duty of the sheriff of the county to attend all courts of record, either personally or by deputy. He also executes such processes as under the practice of the court may be directed to him.
Witnesses and jurors are thus summoned by him to appear before the court; arrests and attachments of property are made; and executions are levied to enforce final judgments.
CHAPTER IX
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
The Const.i.tution of the United States (Art. III) provides that there must always be one Supreme Court of the United States. The establishment of such inferior courts as may be deemed proper from time to time is left to Congress.
The judicial power of the United States is limited to cases of certain kinds or between certain kinds of parties. Either (1) the subject-matter of the action must be of a kind that concerns the whole nation, or (2) some party to it must be or claim under a political sovereign, or (3) it must be between a citizen of a State of the Union and one of another of the States or of a foreign country.
In a few of the second cla.s.s the Supreme Court is given original jurisdiction: in all others of both cla.s.ses it has appellate jurisdiction, with such exceptions as Congress may think fit to make, save only that no fact tried by a jury can be thus re-examined, except so far as the rules of the common law would have permitted. Its original jurisdiction is confined to cases affecting amba.s.sadors, ministers, and consuls and those to which a State shall be a party. It is not necessarily exclusive as respects any of them,[Footnote: Ames _v._ Kansas, 111 U. S. Reports, 449, 469.] and by the eleventh amendment to the Const.i.tution is so limited as not to include suits against a State by citizens of any other State or foreign government. In point of fact, few original suits have ever been brought before the court, and almost all of these have been inst.i.tuted by or against States.
The Supreme Court is held at Washington. There is a Chief Justice with eight a.s.sociate justices, and each is also a.s.signed for circuit duty as a judge of the Circuit Court of the United States in one of nine judicial circuits into which the country is divided. Originally there were but six judges, and each was required to hold two circuits a year in each district in his circuit. They were a.s.signed to the circuits in pairs, and both sat together with the District Judge. The consequence was that three-fourths of their time was spent in traveling from one court town to another. They complained of this to Congress through the President in 1792, and the next year it was provided that Circuit Courts might be held by one justice, alone or with the District Judge. In 1801, an ultimate reduction of the number to five was provided for. They were to devote their time entirely to the Supreme Court, while the Circuit Courts were to be held by a new set of eighteen Circuit Judges. In 1802, they had only ten cases pending before them, and the average for some years had not exceeded that number. For this and other reasons mentioned elsewhere the Act of 1801 was repealed by the next Congress. In 1807, another Justice of the Supreme Court was added and two more in 1837.
Each circuit has a judicial establishment of its own, and is composed of a certain number of judicial districts. Of these there are in the whole United States about eighty. The smaller States const.i.tute one district. In the larger ones there are several.
Each district generally has its own judge, called the District Judge, and always its own court, called the District Court of that district. Each circuit has several Circuit Judges, whose main work is to sit in a court held in each circuit, styled the Circuit Court of Appeals. They can also hold a District Court.
Until 1911, the District Courts had a narrow jurisdiction, and there were Circuit Courts having a wider one. In 1911, the Circuit Court was abolished, and the District Court now is the general trial court of the United States in the first instance.
Anyone can sue there to enforce a right arising under the laws of the United States when the amount in dispute is more than $3,000.
Rights arising under certain of these laws can only be enforced there, and as to them the pecuniary limitation does not apply.
Such are patent-rights and copyrights. Any suit involving an amount exceeding $3,000 may be brought there when the controversy is between citizens of different States or citizens of a State and citizens of a foreign country. So may a suit by citizens of the same State claiming land under grants from different States, without respect to the value of the subject of controversy.
Suits of any of these kinds which are brought in a State court may, at the option of the defendant, be transferred for trial into the District Court. On filing proper papers the case is transferred automatically. The District Court has jurisdiction also over bankruptcy and admiralty matters, a few other kinds of civil cases of minor importance, and of all offenses against the United States.[Footnote: The Judicial Code of the United States, Chapter II.]
The pecuniary limit of jurisdiction was for a hundred years fixed at $500. The increase to $3,000 was due partly to the fact that the Supreme Court was overburdened by appeals from the trial courts, many of which involved small amounts, and more to a desire to keep judicial power over ordinary controversies between man and man, as far as practicable, in the hands of the State courts.
Early in the nineteenth century a practice began of bringing suits in the Circuit Court of the United States, which purported to be between citizens of different States, but in which the plaintiff had either changed his residence for the purpose of giving the court jurisdiction or was really suing for the benefit of a citizen of the same State with the defendant. This was due to the high opinion entertained of the federal judiciary[Footnote: Niles" Register, XXIX, 14.] and the desire to bring the cause before a federal, rather than a State tribunal.
Such a mode of proceeding, while within the letter of the governing statute, was contrary to its spirit, and little better than a fraud. It was also an evident perversion of the intent of the Const.i.tution, and became at last so far-spreading that both Congress and the courts used their best endeavors to put an end to it, and with success.[Footnote: U. S. Statutes at Large, XVIII, 470; Hawes _v._ Oakland, 104 U. S., 450, 459.]
Another cause is also effective in lessening the docket of the District Courts. The ordinary lawyer prefers to sue in a State court, when he has the choice, on account of his greater familiarity with the practice there. Many American lawyers have never brought an action in a federal court. Most cases which could be so brought can also be and are brought in a State court.
Congress has thus far maintained for the federal courts the ancient distinction between procedure in law and in equity explained in the preceding chapter. There are those who claim that the reference in Art. III, Sec. 2, of the Const.i.tution of the United States to "cases in law and equity" requires its preservation; but this seems a strained construction of the phrase. Separate dockets are kept in the District Court of legal and of equitable actions. They are brought in different form, tried in a different way, and disposed of by different rules, though by the same judges and at the same term of court. As to equity cases, the rules of the old English chancery practice are substantially followed. In cases of a common law nature, the practice existing at the time in regard to those of a similar kind in the courts of the State within which the federal court may be held is to be followed, as nearly as may be.[Footnote: U. S. Revised Statutes, -- 914.] In fact, there is a departure from it in many points in most States,[Footnote: See Nudd _v._ Burrows, 91 U. S. Reports, 426.] and in vital ones in those which have reformed their procedure in civil actions by fusing remedies at law with those in equity. If an action framed in this method be removed from a State court to a federal court, the plaintiff must thereupon split it in two, and present his case at law on one set of papers and his case in equity on another.
The Supreme Court, under power derived from acts of Congress, has framed rules of procedure for the inferior trial courts of the United States in equity and admiralty cases, and the latter courts have supplemented them by further rules of their own making. The Equity Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court were revised in 1912, and took effect as changed in 1913.[Footnote: They are printed in Volume 226 of the United States Reports.]
They greatly simplify the former procedure. Suits are now tried generally on oral testimony taken stenographically in open court.
Formerly the evidence was usually given before officials known as examiners or masters in chancery. The former reported the testimony at length to the trial court. The latter reported their conclusions from it.
The new rules have abolished demurrers in equity causes in favor of what is substantially the present English practice.[Footnote: See _infra,_ page 203.]
In common law causes in the District Court, the State remedies by way of attaching the property of a defendant to respond to a judgment, or seizing it on execution, or imposing a lien upon it by a judgment, are adopted and enforced.[Footnote: U. S. Rev. Stat., ---- 915, 916, 967, 988.]
The field of national legislation being narrow, the offenses against the nation are correspondingly few. Any acts done on lands ceded by a State, which would have been crimes under its law in 1873, may be punished as such in the federal courts in the same manner which that law provided.[Footnote: _Ibid_., -- 5391.]
In the Circuit Courts, before 1866 it was customary to defer the trial of important causes until the Justice of the Supreme Court a.s.signed to the circuit could be present. If he differed on any material point from the District Judge, this point could be certified up to the full Supreme Court for argument and decision there. During this period the published reports of the decisions of the Circuit Court contain many opinions of the highest value.
Several of the best which Story and Bushrod Washington wrote are to be found among them.
The Act of 1866, by which a resident Circuit Judge was appointed for each circuit, provided notwithstanding that each member of the Supreme Court should attend at least one term of the Circuit Court in each district as often as once in two years. The press of business at Washington, however, soon became such as to make it practically impossible for the Supreme Court Justices to do any substantial circuit work. When some case of national importance was to be heard in any district, the Justice in whose circuit it was included would make a special effort to go down.
In this way Chief Justice Chase heard and sustained the plea with which Jefferson Davis met the indictment against him for treason.
But ordinarily the Circuit Judge took the place of the Supreme Court Justice, and the latter, if he appeared at all during the term, remained hardly for a day.
The Supreme Court, therefore, during over a hundred years remained the only court of the United States existing mainly for appellate purposes. The work which it had before it at the last term during which it occupied this position (October Term, 1890) will show how much it was then overburdened.
Its docket contained 1,177 appeals brought forward by continuance because they could not be disposed of at the preceding term, 623 new cases of the same kind, and 16 cases of original jurisdiction, making a total of 1,816 actions. Of these, although the term lasted nearly eight months, it was only able to dispose of 617, thus leaving 1,199 for continuance to the following term.[Footnote: 140 U. S. Reports, Appendix.] It will be observed that the court was no longer able to cope with its new business, not to mention that left over from previous years.
Appeals now lie in most civil cases from the final judgments of the District and Circuit Courts, and from convictions for infamous crimes, not capital, to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
They also extend to judgments granting a temporary injunction.
There is a court of this name for each of the nine circuits, which was established in 1891 for the further relief of the Supreme Court and the speedier termination of litigation. This measure originated in the American Bar a.s.sociation, by which it was pressed upon the attention of Congress. It had become an absolute necessity to devise some plan of expediting the disposition of appeals from the trial courts of the United States. There was more than enough of such business by the close of the Civil War (the events attending which brought up for decision many novel questions of the highest importance) to require the entire attention of the Supreme Court. It soon took three years after an appeal was docketed before it could be reached for argument. This was intolerable, and it was obviously necessary either to restrict the liberty of appeal; to const.i.tute divisions of the court, one to hear appeals of a certain cla.s.s and another those of another cla.s.s; or to set up an intermediate court. The last method was preferred. The practice in the Circuit Court of Appeals is governed by rules of its own making, but in general conforms to that of the Supreme Court of the United States in appealed cases.
The commission appointed some years since to prepare a revision of the laws of the United States have reported in favor of abolishing all jurisdiction of the Circuit Court over original cases and turning it into an appellate court.[Footnote: Senate Doc. 68, 57th Congress, 1st Session.] Should this recommendation be adopted, the District Court would acquire the jurisdiction now vested in the Circuit Court, the District Judges would sit in the District Court only, and the Circuit Court Judges in the Circuit Court only, while the Circuit Court of Appeals would come to an end.
The American Bar a.s.sociation voted in 1903 that it was desirable to establish a new appellate court to sit at Washington and take cognizance of patent and copyright cases. Such a measure would tend to relieve the Supreme Court of the United States of any undue pressure of business, and promote both uniformity and prompt.i.tude of decision in a cla.s.s of actions in which prompt.i.tude and uniformity are of special importance. As things stand now, a patent may be p.r.o.nounced invalid in one circuit and upheld in another by courts of equal authority; and while in such event the Supreme Court would probably, on a special application, call both these judgments up before it for review, this remedy cannot be claimed as a matter of absolute right, and is at best a slow one.