democracy in america-1-第27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！


ul　to　perceive　how　much　lower　we　are　sunk　than　our　forefathers；　since　we　allow　things　to　pass　under　the　color　of　justice　and　the　sanction　of　the　law　which　violence　alone　could　impose　upon　them。


Chapter　VII：　Political　Jurisdiction　In　The　United　States

Chapter　Summary

Definition　of　political　jurisdiction　…　What　is　understood　by　political　jurisdiction　in　France；　in　England；　and　in　the　United　States　…　In　America　the　political　judge　can　only　pass　sentence　on　public　officers　…　He　more　frequently　passes　a　sentence　of　removal　from　office　than　a　penalty　…　Political　jurisdiction　as　it　exists　in　the　United　States　is；　notwithstanding　its　mildness；　and　perhaps　in　consequence　of　that　mildness；　a　most　powerful　instrument　in　the　hands　of　the　majority。

Political　Jurisdiction　In　The　United　States

I　understand；　by　political　jurisdiction；　that　temporary　right　of　pronouncing　a　legal　decision　with　which　a　political　body　may　be　invested。

In　absolute　governments　no　utility　can　accrue　from　the　introduction　of　extraordinary　forms　of　procedure；　the　prince　in　whose　name　an　offender　is　prosecuted　is　as　much　the　sovereign　of　the　courts　of　justice　as　of　everything　else；　and　the　idea　which　is　entertained　of　his　power　is　of　itself　a　sufficient　security。　　The　only　thing　he　has　to　fear　is；　that　the　external　formalities　of　justice　should　be　neglected；　and　that　his　authority　should　be　dishonored　from　a　wish　to　render　it　more　absolute。　　But　in　most　free　countries；　in　which　the　majority　can　never　exercise　the　same　influence　upon　the　tribunals　as　an　absolute　monarch；　the　judicial　power　has　occasionally　been　vested　for　a　time　in　the　representatives　of　the　nation。　　It　has　been　thought　better　to　introduce　a　temporary　confusion　between　the　functions　of　the　different　authorities　than　to　violate　the　necessary　principle　of　the　unity　of　government。

England；　France；　and　the　United　States　have　established　this　political　jurisdiction　by　law；　and　it　is　curious　to　examine　the　different　adaptations　which　these　three　great　nations　have　made　of　the　principle。　　In　England　and　in　France　the　House　of　Lords　and　the　Chambre　des　Paris　*a　constitute　the　highest　criminal　court　of　their　respective　nations；　and　although　they　do　not　habitually　try　all　political　offences；　they　are　competent　to　try　them　all。　Another　political　body　enjoys　the　right　of　impeachment　before　the　House　of　Lords：　the　only　difference　which　exists　between　the　two　countries　in　this　respect　is；　that　in　England　the　Commons　may　impeach　whomsoever　they　please　before　the　Lords；　whilst　in　France　the　Deputies　can　only　employ　this　mode　of　prosecution　against　the　ministers　of　the　Crown。

＇Footnote　a：　＇As　it　existed　under　the　constitutional　monarchy　down　to　1848。＇＇

In　both　countries　the　Upper　House　may　make　use　of　all　the　existing　penal　laws　of　the　nation　to　punish　the　delinquents。　

In　the　United　States；　as　well　as　in　Europe；　one　branch　of　the　legislature　is　authorized　to　impeach　and　another　to　judge：　the　House　of　Representatives　arraigns　the　offender；　and　the　Senate　awards　his　sentence。　But　the　Senate　can　only　try　such　persons　as　are　brought　before　it　by　the　House　of　Representatives；　and　those　persons　must　belong　to　the　class　of　public　functionaries。　　Thus　the　jurisdiction　of　the　Senate　is　less　extensive　than　that　of　the　Peers　of　France；　whilst　the　right　of　impeachment　by　the　Representatives　is　more　general　than　that　of　the　Deputies。　　But　the　great　difference　which　exists　between　Europe　and　America　is；　that　in　Europe　political　tribunals　are　empowered　to　inflict　all　the　dispositions　of　the　penal　code；　while　in　America；　when　they　have　deprived　the　offender　of　his　official　rank；　and　have　declared　him　incapable　of　filling　any　political　office　for　the　future；　their　jurisdiction　terminates　and　that　of　the　ordinary　tribunals　begins。　

Suppose；　for　instance；　that　the　President　of　the　United　States　has　committed　the　crime　of　high　treason；　the　House　of　Representatives　impeaches　him；　and　the　Senate　degrades　him；　he　must　then　be　tried　by　a　jury；　which　alone　can　deprive　him　of　his　liberty　or　his　life。　　This　accurately　illustrates　the　subject　we　are　treating。　　The　political　jurisdiction　which　is　established　by　the　laws　of　Europe　is　intended　to　try　great　offenders；　whatever　may　be　their　birth；　their　rank；　or　their　powers　in　the　State；　and　to　this　end　all　the　privileges　of　the　courts　of　justice　are　temporarily　extended　to　a　great　political　assembly。　　The　legislator　is　then　transformed　into　the　magistrate；　he　is　called　upon　to　admit；　to　distinguish；　and　to　punish　the　offence；　and　as　he　exercises　all　the　authority　of　a　judge；　the　law　restricts　him　to　the　observance　of　all　the　duties　of　that　high　office；　and　of　all　the　formalities　of　justice。　　When　a　public　functionary　is　impeached　before　an　English　or　a　French　political　tribunal；　and　is　found　guilty；　the　sentence　deprives　him　ipso　facto　of　his　functions；　and　it　may　pronounce　him　to　be　incapable　of　resuming　them　or　any　others　for　the　future。　　But　in　this　case　the　political　interdict　is　a　consequence　of　the　sentence；　and　not　the　sentence　itself。　　In　Europe　the　sentence　of　a　political　tribunal　is　to　be　regarded　as　a　judicial　verdict　rather　than　as　an　administrative　measure。　　In　the　United　States　the　contrary　takes　place；　and　although　the　decision　of　the　Senate　is　judicial　in　its　form；　since　the　Senators　are　obliged　to　comply　with　the　practices　and　formalities　of　a　court　of　justice；　although　it　is　judicial　in　respect　to　the　motives　on　which　it　is　founded；　since　the　Senate　is　in　general　obliged　to　take　an　offence　at　common　law　as　the　basis　of　its　sentence；　nevertheless　the　object　of　the　proceeding　is　purely　administrative。　If　it　had　been　the　intention　of　the　American　legislator　to　invest　a　political　body　with　great　judicial　authority；　its　action　would　not　have　been　limited　to　the　circle　of　public　functionaries；　since　the　most　dangerous　enemies　of　the　State　may　be　in　the　possession　of　no　functions　at　all；　and　this　is　especially　true　in　republics；　where　party　influence　is　the　first　of　authorities；　and　where　the　strength　of　many　a　reader　is　increased　by　his　exercising　no　legal　power。

If　it　had　been　the　intention　of　the　American　legislator　to　give　society　the　means　of　repressing　State　offences　by　exemplary　punishment；　according　to　the　practice　of　ordinary　justice；　the　resources　of　the　penal　code　would　all　have　been　placed　at　the　disposal　of　the　political　tribunals。　　But　the　weapon　with　which　they　are　intrusted　is　an　imperfect　one；　and　it　can　never　reach　the　most　dangerous　offenders；　since　men　who　aim　at　the　entire　subversion　of　the　laws　are　not　likely　to　murmur　at　a　political　interdict。

The　main　object　of　the　political　jurisdiction　which　obtains　in　the　United　States　is；　therefore；　to　deprive　the　ill…disposed　citizen　of　an　authority　which　he　has　used　amiss；　and　to　prevent　him　from　ever　acquiring　it　again。　This　is　evidently　an　administrative　measure　sanctioned　by　the　formalities　of　a　judicial　decision。　　In　this　matter　the　Americans　have　created　a　mixed　system；　they　have　surrounded　the　act　which　removes　a　public　functionary　with　the　securities　of　a　political　trial；　and　they　have　deprived　all　political　condemnations　of　their　severest　penalties。　　Every　link　of　the　system　may　easily　be　traced　from　this　point；　we　at　once　perceive　why　the　American　constitutions　subject　all　the　civil　functionaries　to　the　jurisdiction　of　the　Senate；　whilst　the　military；　whose　crimes　are　nevertheless　more　formidable；　are　exempted　from　that　tribunal。　　In　the　civil　service　none　of　the　American　functionaries　can　be　said　to　be　removable；　the　places　which　some　of　them　occupy　are　inalienable；　and　the　others　are　chosen　for　a　term　which　cannot　be　shortened。　　It　is　therefore　necessary　to　try　them　all　in　order　to　deprive　them　of　their　authority。　　But　military　officers　are　dependent　on　the　chief　magistrate　of　the　State；　who　is　himself　a　civil　functionary；　and　the　decision　which　condemns　him　is　a　blow　upon　them　all。

If　we　now　compare　the　American　and　the　European　systems；　we　shall　meet　with　differences　no　less　striking　in　the　different　effects　which　each　of　them　produces　or　may　produce。　　In　France　and　in　England　the　jurisdiction　of　political　bodies　is　looked　upon　as　an　extraordinary　resource；　which　is　only　to　be　employed　in　order　to　rescue　society　from　unwonted　dangers。　　It　is　not　to　be　denied　that　these　tribunals；　as　they　are　constituted　in　Europe；　are　apt　to　violate　the　conservative　principle　of　the　balance　of　power　in　the　State；　and　to　threaten　incessantly　the　lives　and　liberties　of　the　subject。　　The　same　political　jurisdiction　in　the　United　States　is　only　indirectly　hostile　to　the　balance　of　power；　it　cannot　menace　the　lives　of　the　citizens；　and　it　does　not　hover；　as　in　Europe；　over　the　heads　of　the　community；　since　those　only　who　have　submitted　to　its　authority　on　accepting　office　are　exposed　to　the　severity　of　its　investigations。　　It　is　at　the　same　time　less　formidable　and　less　efficacious；　indeed；　it　has　not　been　considered　by　the　legislators　of　the　United　States　as　a　remedy　for　the　more　violent　evils　of　society；　but　as　an　ordinary　means　of　conducting　the　government。　　In　this　respect　it　probably　exercises　more　real　influence　on　the　social　body　in　America　than　in　Europe。　We　must　not　be　misled　by　the　apparent　mildness　of　the　American　legislation　in　all　that　relates　to　political　jurisdiction。　　It　is　to　be　observed；　in　the　first　place；　that　in　the　United　States　the　tribunal　which　passes　sentence　is　composed　of　the　same　elements；　and　subject　to　the　same　influences；　as　the　body　which　impeaches　the　offender；　and　that　this　uniformity　gives　an　almost　irresistible　impulse　to　the　vindictive　passions　of　parties。　　If　political　judges　in　the　United　States　cannot　inflict　such　heavy　penalties　as　those　of　Europe；　there　is　the　less　chance　of　their　acquitting　a　prisoner；　and　the　conviction；　if　it　is　less　formidable；　is　more　certain。　　The　principal　object　of　the　political　tribunals　of　Europe　is　to　punish　the　offender；　the　purpose　of　those　in　America　is　to　deprive　him　of　his　authority。　　A　political　condemnation　in　the　United　States　may；　therefore；　be　looked　upon　as　a　preventive　measure；　and　there　is　no　reason　for　restricting　the　judges　to　the　exact　definitions　of　criminal　law。　　Nothing　can　be　more　alarming　than　the　excessive　latitude　with　which　political　offences　are　described　in　the　laws　of　America。　　Article　II。；　Section　4；　of　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　runs　thus：　…　〃The　President；　Vice…President；　and　all　civil　officers　of　the　United　States　shall　be　removed　from　office　on　impeachment　for；　and　conviction　of；　treason；　bribery；　or　other　high　crimes　and　misdemeanors。〃　Many　of　the　Constitutions　of　the　States　are　even　less　explicit。　　〃Public　officers；〃　says　the　Constitution　of　Massachusetts；　*b　〃shall　be　impeached　for　misconduct　or　maladministration；〃　the　Constitution　of　Virginia　declares　that　all　the　civil　officers　who　shall　have　offended　against　the　State；　by　maladministration；　corruption；　or　other　high　crimes；　may　be　impeached　by　the　House　of　Delegates；　in　some　constitutions　no　offences　are　specified；　in　order　to　subject　the　public　functionaries　to　an　unlimited　responsibility。　*c　But　I　will　venture　to　affirm　that　it　is　precisely　their　mildness　which　renders　the　American　laws　most　formidable　in　this　respect。　　We　have　shown　that　in