Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

are not allowed to crowd into the court rooms, but are retained in a witness room and are called in as they are wanted. Here, the counsel in the case, the parties, the witnesses and all of their friends think it necessary not only to crowd into the court room, but to crowd on to the jury, and they seem to take it as an affront if they are prevented from so doing.

The very fact that the court houses in England have been designed to transact business and not to enable counsel to play "star engagements" has its effect, and while as some contend it has produced a decline of eloquence, it has served to facilitate the administration of the law, and thereby saved much valuable time and a great amount of money.

There people do not go to gossip and hear the lawyers spar, because they are not furnished any facilities for so doing. Here, lawyers, especially in criminal cases, take control of the court, consume days and weeks in obtaining juries, and then an equal amount of time in trying the cases, and courts are by our laws powerless to check them.

In England, lawyers stand up when impaneling juries or when examining witnesses, or making objections to the introduction of testimony. In Illinois, they are permitted to sit or lie down, and resent it as an innovation if requested to assume an upright posture.

We want new court houses designed with special reference to the accomplishment of the objects of their erection, with all of the modern appliances and modern conveniences, and a bar willing to co-operate with the courts in all of their efforts to administer the laws and execute justice, and then over the entrance to the Temple of Justice should be inscribed in letters of gold, the words found in our Bill of Rights which supplement the great charter of King John:

"Every person ought to find a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs which he may receive in his person, property or reputation; he ought to obtain by law, right and justice freely and without being obliged to purchase it, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay."

Elliot Anthony.

A CENTURY OF REPUBLICANISM.

Following our Centennial celebration, when the public mind has been called to our constitutional government, it may not be unprofitable to calmly glance over our history and gather what lessons we may from our experience of a hundred years. When our fathers set out with their somewhat doubtful experiment of a republic, it was generally predicted that they would fail, and that in a few years they would return, if not to the subjection of England, at least to the refuge of a monarchy. It was then a question whether a republic was, under any circumstances, possible, and especially under the difficulties with which we had to contend-a great war on our hands disputing the existence of the nation itself, a great number of disconnected States with little community of interest, a wild region with almost no arts or industries, and a perpetual enemy of savages in our midst and on our borders.

It was doubtful, I say, whether, under such circumstances, a people could govern themselves, if, indeed, they could do so at all. It was apprehended, in particular, that, as republicans, we should be theoretical and visionary; that, with wild and impracticable ideals, we would not attempt the merely possible in government, or be content with anything we might realize; and that, in consequence, we should be revolutionary and unstable, always changing for something unattainable. It was thought, too, that in the variety of our individual opinions, in which every man would think himself supreme, we should be irreconcilable as a whole, and unmanageable as a body politic;

that, in our inexperience in government, and our impatience of moderation, the minority would not submit to the majority, or one department work harmoniously with another. In consequence of all this, it was thought that we should be beset with internal dissensions and insubordination, and be the prey of civil wars and anarchy, so that we would ultimately welcome a monarchy or even despotism, as a happy deliverance.

In the absence of that peace which was thought to belong only to an empire or strong personal government, it was believed, too, that there would be no adequate encouragement to industry; that in the insecurity of person and property which would follow our failures, we should not try to become rich. Depending on spoils and political preferments instead of labor (as republicans and liberals were then thought to do), it was contended that we would, instead of developing our resources, idly try to get what is our neighbor's by political reform. In brief, it was predicted that, instead of a great and prosperous career, we should not be able to maintain the status with which we set out.

Such was the prospect with which, in the eyes of the world, our fathers commenced their career a hundred years ago-a prospect which was shared also by many of our friends whose forebodings shadowed a dark future for us. For, with the exception of a few visionary Frenchmen, who were on the eve of their great revolution, there were few anywhere who were not convinced of the impossibility of a republic, and some of our own wisest statesmen thought our experiment of questionable expediency.

Now, in answer to these forbidding prophecies and forebodings, as well as to the unfavorable criticisms of to-day, we adduce the facts of our history for the past hundred years. The record which we as a republic have made in this time is full of significance to the statesman and historian.

And first, with regard to the apprehension that we should be beset with wars, and so be rendered incapable of realizing the advantages of peace. During all this time-that is, in the first century of our existence-we have had but two foreign wars, one with England in 1812, and one with Mexico in 1845; this

being the greatest example of protracted peace and comparative immunity from bloodshed known in history. Not to compare it with the almost perpetual and interminable war history of the ancient civilizations, or of the governments of the Middle Ages, which were founded and carried on in blood, or even with the ceaseless wars of modern Europe prior to our independence, in which, since the Reformation, all the States, from Sweden to Turkey, have been involved (once for a period of thirty, and once for a period of seven years), when peace was only an armistice, and new wars could not commence because old ones never ceased; not, I say, to compare our history with those times, when, certainly, it cannot be said that monarchies were a preventive, of war, or that empires meant peace; but to confine ourselves to the last hundred years, and to the parallel courses of other nations with ours, we find that we, inexperienced as we were in government and diplomacy, and having new principles to establish and illustrate, have given the noblest peace example of them all. For, in this same period, while we have had but two wars, England has had eight foreign wars, besides her Indian, Persian and China wars, France has had nine wars, Prussia six, Russia fourteen, Austria five, Spain four, and Italy five.

Comparing more at length our history with that of England in this respect, we find that, while we have been enjoying a hundred years of peace (or 113 since our Declaration of Independence), broken only in 1812 and in 1845 with wars, which together aggregate but six years, England at the same time has had twenty-eight years of war. From 1778 to 1783, she had a war with France. From 1780 to 1783, she had a war with Spain. During the same time she had a war also with Holland. In 1793, she commenced the war of the Revolution, which lasted till 1802, or nine years, and in 1801 the war against the Confederation of the North, all of which wars were had before our peace was once broken. Then, in 1803, she began the war against Bonaparte, which lasted twelve years. From 1812 to 1815, she carried on a war with the United States, and from 1854 to 1856, she carried on the Crimean War with Russia. During the same period she has also had nine wars with India,

[ocr errors]

two with China and one with Persia. Accordingly, while our first century has been a century of peace, England's, with which more than any other we are unfavorably compared, has been a century of war.

Comparing, again, our history with that of France, we find that, in the period in which we have had but two short wars. France has been almost perpetually at war, aggregating forty years out of the hundred. For, in this time, she engaged in 1778, in a war with England, rendering aid to the American colonies in their efforts for independence; in 1792, she entered the field against the allied powers of Europe, continuing the struggle for twenty-three years, till 1815. In 1793, she declared war against England; in 1812, she declared war also against Russia, and în 1813 against Austria, Russia and Prussia.

In 1854, she engaged in the Crimean War; in 1857, she, with Sardinia, aided Victor Emanuel against Austria. In 1862 she fought with Mexico, to enthrone Maximilian, and in 1870, commenced her fatal war with Prussia. In short, while we have pursued a policy of peace, France has pursued one of glory and conquest, the result of which, compared with our prosperity, has been humiliation and defeat.

Comparing, in the next place, our history with that of Prussia, we find that the strongest of monarchies while professing a traditional peace policy, has had three times as many wars as we. In 1792, she commenced a war with France, which she carried on through the whole revolutionary period. In 1803, she renewed it, as a member of the Holy Alliance, and continued therein till the fall of Napoleon 'in 1815. In 1848, she assisted the duchies against Denmark, fighting till 1850. In 1866, she again fought against Denmark in the Schleswig-Holstein War. In 1866, she commenced the war against Austria and the South-German States, and finally, in 1870, entered into the Franco-Prussian War. Thus, monarchical Prussia, as compared with republican America, has had a career of war, and established her monarchy in blood rather than in sweat.

[ocr errors]

Comparing, again, our history with that of Russia, we get a similar result. Instead of an almost uniform reign of peace,

« ZurückWeiter »