ingenious and well-intended constitutions, are those that have most completely failed.

It was desired by the founders of the Republic, that the judges should occupy a position of dignity and independence. The control of the Federal Government, extends, however, only to the Supreme Court and its branches, the position of which has been maintained to this day, under the terms of the Constitution. The judges of that Court are selected by the President, with the approval of the Senate, virtually for life; their salaries cannot be diminished during tenure of office, and from their decisions there is no appeal. Thus every precaution was taken by the framers of the Constitution, to insure the independence and dignity worthy of so high an office. Placed beyond the reach of party influence, or the control of the populace, the Supreme Court has commanded to this day the respect of the whole people. It might be more correct to say, it had commanded this respect up to a recent date, for Mr. Lincoln has set the example of questioning the force of its decisions, when adverse, and of treating with contempt its writ of Habeas Corpus-the most cherished of all the safeguards of the Anglo-Saxon race; and this, too, when issued by the Chief Justice, in a State within the Union. And this Court, so eminent up to this period, has not only commanded the respect of the people, but has been presided over by men, whose names are known and honoured, wherever jurisprudence has been studied.

With this example before them, and the spirit of the Constitution as a guide, it might have been expected that the various States would follow in the same steps, and secure the same advantages. But the democratic, which has supplanted the republican spirit, and which aims at reducing all things to its own level, appears to have regarded even the judges, as objects of jealousy and distrust. Throughout the States there has been, since the presidency of Jefferson, a constant desire to lower the dignity of justice,—to shackle it-to cheapen it-to shorten the tenure of the office-to bring it within the control of political committees, and render it a spoil of party triumph. In succession, the States have abandoned their old rule, of electing the judges through their governments, and have brought them under the direct sway of popular election. Some of the States have reduced their salaries below the usual income of the attorney, and placed these salaries at the hazard of an annual vote. As if election, in the first instance, by committees, had not given sufficient control, these elections are now for short periods, to render dependence more complete. Had it been the object, to reject the teaching of the Constitution, and to tarnish the dignity of justice, no more effectual means could have been taken.

The result may be readily anticipated. Men of eminence are not likely to relinquish their position at the Bar, in order to bring themselves under

such servitude, and to accept an inadequate salary, precarious in its tenure. Men of learning, of reserved habits and independence of mind-those whom other people desire should occupy the seat of justice--are ill suited, and little inclined, to frequent the lobbies of electioneering committee rooms. It follows, that the highest offices in the law are filled, in the Courts of the States, by an inferior class of men. And when the judges are treated with so little regard, it is not to be expected that there will exist any very great reverence for justice.

There is indeed a remarkable irreverence for justice, which seems to pervade all classes of society. On common occasions law and order are maintained as in other countries; but there exists a general belief throughout the popular mind, that whenever so disposed the people may discard the law with impunity. This belief creates a disrespect for courts of justice and for the sanctity of law, to which there seems no exception. Where should we expect greater decorum than in the Senate, amidst the "patres conscripti" of the Republic? Yet there, but three years ago, a member of the House of Representatives assaulted a senator when seated at his official desk, taking him unawares, and so assailing him as to endanger life. This occurred in broad daylight, in the open session, and but one of the senators attempted to interfere, to break the deferential respect for vigorous atrocity. In all countries outrages occur, and in

F

some there are influences that lead them to take a peculiar direction, but they are punished by the law, and denounced by public opinion. In this case there was a merely nominal fine, and the assailant was immediately elevated into a hero. It was held to be a brave thing thus to attack an unarmed man, and a proof of moral courage, to perpetrate the outrage in the legislative halls of the Republic. On another recent occasion, and again in the capital, a person moving in the best society committed a deliberate and relentless murder in the open day. He was acquitted by the jury because the provocation was intolerable -a just reason for mitigating a sentence, but strange ground upon which to base a verdict. All this might deserve little notice, but the man was instantly adopted as an object of public sympathy and admiration, greeted with enthusiastic applause, and is now a Brigadier-General in the Northern army.

If the law can thus be broken by men in the highest position, not only with impunity, but with approval, it is not likely to be held in greater respect in the lower walks of life. The Loafer, the Rowdy, the Border Ruffian, have become prominent actors in the drama of American life, and they are not mere exceptional individuals, few in number, but large classes of society. Each of them has equal political power with the most intelligent of the country, and is a copartner in that sovereignty of the people, of which he not unfre

quently interprets his share to consist in the privilege of breaking laws at his sovereign will. The existence of this class leads to that tendency to outrage which no other country has ever witnessed in equal degree. Bowie knives, revolvers, brass knuckles-in the South, the barbarity of using slow fire as a means of executing negroes, when criminal; in the North, the frequent abuse of human nature on board ship, with such cruelty at times as draws piteous tears from other eyes-these are evidences of a recklessness of law which seems to be producing equal indifference to humanity. In Canada there are large tracts of border-country, and Australia is not wanting in the coarsest elements of population. In neither case are such facts to be met with; and we are driven to look to institutions special to the country as the sources of results so peculiar.

It may be said, that if the individual States thought proper to degrade their officers of justice, or lower their suffrage, or to deviate, as they have done in many directions, from the Federal standard, still this should not be regarded as necessarily chargeable to the Union. But these are results of that Union-the evidence by which it must be judged. Moreover, we shall find that the political alliance, which has given the supreme power to the violent, and overwhelmed the moderate, party, has been a direct result of this Union of conflicting interests.

Again, a Federal Government is inevitably a