speedy examination of witnesses, so that a trial often occupies only three or four minutes, and the penalty is at once fixed and the punishment begins. In most of such cases the guilt is obvious, or the prisoners are too ignorant of the laws to protract the matter; yet on questions of law appeal practically always lies from the municipal court to some higher court. The middle courts of the regular state series commonly take cognizance of the most serious crimes. Here, as cases may involve life and death, trials are sometimes long and searching, and may last two months or more. The highest courts seldom examine into the facts in criminal cases, but pass on questions of law which may be appealed to them.

In the system of criminal jurisprudence are deeply imbedded the principles of indictment and trial by jury. Indictment is the process of preliminary examination, usually by a grand jury, of the evidence against a man charged with crime; if the jury sees reason to send the case to trial, it "finds a true bill," and the prosecutor must bring the matter to trial. In justice courts and municipal courts the jury is usually dispensed with, although in most states it must be had if the prisoner demands it. The more serious crimes are always tried by a "petty" jury, the common rule being that there must be twelve jurors and a unanimous verdict; but several of the far Western states allow a decision by ten, or even fewer, jurors out of the twelve. In most states a jury trial may be waived if the prisoner so desires. The jury system is at present the subject of much complaint: jury duty is tedious and habitually avoided by busy men; the professional juryman is unsafe; and in many kinds of cases, especially those having to do with liquor-selling and strikes, twelve men cannot be found who will unite in a verdict of guilty.

In all important cases the state is represented by a prosecuting officer, whose duty it is (1) to secure evidence to justify a warrant for the arrest of a suspected man; (2) to present evidence to a grand jury which will induce it to bring

in an indictment; (3) to produce witnesses and to marshal the evidence at the actual trial. Everywhere in America prisoners are allowed to employ counsel, and if they have none, the court will make assignments in serious cases. The court designated a well-known lawyer to appear in behalf of the assassin of President McKinley in 1901.

The ordinary punishment for aggravated crimes in the United States is imprisonment, for terms varying from one hour to a life sentence. All sentences for terms of years are subject to a deduction of about one fifth for good conduct while in prison; and the average of long sentences is much brought down by the frequent use of the pardoning power, so that prisoners under life sentence are said actually to average about ten years in prison.

The former cruel and brutal punishments for crimes have officially disappeared entirely in the United States: tonguepiercing, ear-slitting, pillorying, branding, and the like are no longer ordered by the courts, although in Delaware public whipping is still a penalty. There is, however, a lamentable practice, amounting almost to a system, of so-called “lynch law," which means that people (in the Southern states usually, though not invariably, negroes) shall be seized by a mob and, if suspected of aggravated crimes — including rape, murder, arson, and shooting with intent to kill be put to death by shooting or hanging, or in many instances by burning at the stake or by other tortures. It need hardly be said that lynch law is neither law nor justice, since it is executed in a period of great excitement, without any proper process for ascertaining whether the person charged is guilty; and the fierce and vindictive punishments not only tend to brutalize those who take part in them and the community which allows them, but do not seem to prevent the crimes.

76. Civil Law and Jurisprudence.

Much greater in number than the criminal proceedings are the civil suits of every kind. In general, the jurisdiction of the courts extends to all subjects regulated by legislative enactments; but in many instances, where there is no positive statute, the court takes the principles of common law. In all the states but two or three there is a system called "equity," which is a special kind of legal process, originally intended to furnish a speedy remedy where the common law was roundabout or inadequate. The difference between law and equity is not so much in legal principles as in the way in which they are enforced courts of law enforce their judgment against the property of the defendant; courts of equity against his person, by commanding him to do or refrain from doing a certain thing. The penalty of his disobedience is punishment for contempt of court. Some states have special chancery (equity) courts; in others, equity proceedings are held by the regular courts.

The prime principle with regard to civil jurisdiction is that the court must have a case before it. In a few states the legislative or executive officers have the right to ask the Supreme Court for an opinion upon a proposed measure; but, without some such constitutional requirement, judges refuse to give decisions in cases which are not argued before them so that both sides may be represented.

The courts attempt to follow previous decisions involving the same principles: thus the lower Kentucky courts will try to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, and the Supreme Court of that state will usually follow its previous decisions. When no decisions can be found exactly in point, lawyers and courts refer to decisions of other states, or of the United States, or of England. Hence the skilled and successful lawyer is he who, by his knowledge of decisions already rendered, can form a probable surmise as to the result of a given and he will dissuade clients from entering suits not likely

to be sustained.

The subjects upon which suits may be brought are innumerable. Perhaps the most important branch of the law has to do with real property, the holding of land, and the transfer of title by sale, inheritance, or will. Another source of litigation is the collection of debts, either to ascertain the amount justly due or to attach the debtor's property if he declines to pay. The great development of corporations of every kind, especially railroads, has led to an immense body of decisions as to what constitutes membership in a corporation, what rights corporations have to acquire and dispose of property, and especially how far corporations are acting within or beyond the charter which gives them existence. Another great branch of law concerns" torts," or injuries and damages. Perhaps the most important function of the courts is to decide on the powers and relations of officers of state and municipal governments.

The methods of civil court business are much like those in criminal law: jury trials are very common on questions of property, and especially on questions of personal damage; both sides are usually represented by counsel, although any man has the right to appear in his own behalf in a suit. Testimony is introduced, and there is a vast accumulation of precedent and practice upon the question of what is and what is not proper evidence; for example, hearsay is commonly not legal evidence, - that is, A may tell what he saw, but not what B told him that B saw. Most evidence is given in open court, with opportunity for cross-examination; but "depositions "— that is, sworn testimony taken down in writing are admitted under some circumstances. Each side has the right to secure a "subpœna" - that is, a legal summons to appear and give testimony — and witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify. Wives are not obliged, in most cases not allowed, to testify against their husbands; and lawyers, physicians, and ministers are usually exempt from testifying on matters intrusted to them in professional confidence. When the testimony is all in, the lawyer on each side argues the case; and then, if it is a jury

trial, the court sums up the evidence in a "charge," in which it informs the jury what the law is and summarizes the evidence. In some states the jury insists also on deciding for itself what the law is.

When a suit is once decided, it is very common forthwith to move for a second trial before the same court, on the ground of informalities; and in that case the whole process must be gone through a second time, the same witnesses summoned, often at great expense to the parties. If any considerable amount of property is involved, or if important principles come in, it is very common to carry the case up to the next higher court in one of two methods. One way is by appeal, under which the whole case is tried again, the evidence heard, and the law laid down by the upper court, with a jury if demanded. The much more common method is by writ of error; that is, one of the parties sets forth that the judge in the lower court has made mistakes in his statement of the law, and the upper court is therefore asked, not to go through the whole case again, but on the basis of the errors to notify the judge of the lower court that he must reverse his decision. In such an appeal, the question comes first on the particular points claimed to be erroneous; but the upper court may, and often does, go into the whole case.

Important suits are likely to be appealed the second time from the middle courts to the state Supreme Court, usually on writ of error; and the judgment of this court is final, unless cause can be found for transferring the suit to the federal courts, where again it may go through two stages. It is therefore perfectly possible that a man whose property is wrongfully claimed by another will be compelled to fight his case through six different suits before the question can be finally adjusted. In such long protracted litigation the richer party is most likely to keep up the contest.

The courts are not entirely confined to the decision of contested cases; they also issue writs, which are intended to be