the State, seldom exceed $5000 per annum and are usually smaller. So, too, the length of the term of office varies. It is often the same as that of the governor, and never exceeds four years, except that in New Jersey, a conservative State, the secretary and attorney-general hold for five years; and in Tennessee the attorney-general, who, oddly enough, is appointed by the Supreme Court of the State, holds for eight.

It has already been observed that the State officials are in no sense a ministry or cabinet to the governor. Holding independently of him, and responsible neither to him nor to the legislature, but to the people, they do not take generally his orders, and need not regard his advice. Each has his own department to administer, and as there is little or nothing political in the work, a general agreement in policy, such as must exist between the Federal President and his ministers, is not required. Policy rests with the legislature, whose statutes, prescribing minutely the action to be taken by the officials, leave little room for executive discretion.

Of the subordinate civil service of a State there is little to be said. Though it is not large, for the sphere of administra tive action which remains to the State between the Federal government on the one side, and the county, city, and township governments on the other, is not wide, it increases daily, owing to the eagerness of the people (especially in the West) to have State aid rendered to farmers, to miners, to stock-keepers, and generally in the material development of the country. Much is now done in the way of collecting statistics and issuing reports. However, these administrative bureaux are seldom well manned, for the State legislatures are parsimonious, and do little, by good salaries or otherwise, to induce able men to enter it while the so-called "Spoils System," which has been hitherto applied to State no less than Federal offices, too often makes places the reward of electioneering and wirepulling. Efforts are now being made in some States to induce reforms similar to those begun in the Federal administration, whereby certain walks of the civil service shall be kept out of politics, at least so far as to secure competent men against dismissal on party grounds. Such reforms would in no case apply to the higher officials chosen by the people, for they are always elected for short terms and on party lines.

Every State, except Oregon, provides for the impeachment of executive officers for grave offences. In all save two the State House of Representatives is the impeaching body; and in all but Nebraska the State Senate sits as the tribunal, a two-thirds majority being generally required for a conviction. Impeachments are rare in practice.

There is also in many States a power of removing officials, sometimes by the vote of the legislature, sometimes by the governor on the address of both Houses, or by the governor either alone or with the concurrence of the Senate. Such removals must of course be made in respect of some offence, or for some other sufficient cause, not from caprice or party motives; and when the case does not seem to justify immediate removal, the governor is frequently empowered to suspend the officer, pending an investigation of his conduct.

CHAPTER XLİ

THE STATE JUDICIARY

THE judiciary in every State includes three sets of courts: -A Supreme Court or Court of Appeal; superior courts of record; local courts; but the particular names and relations of these several tribunals and the arrangements for criminal business vary greatly from State to State. As respects the distinction which Englishmen used to deem fundamental, that of courts of common law and courts of equity, there has been great diversity of practice. Most of the original thirteen colonies once possessed separate courts of chancery, and these were maintained for many years after the separation from England, and were imitated in a few of the earlier among the new States, such as Michigan, Arkansas, Missouri. In some of the old States, however, the hostility to equity jurisdiction, which marked the popular party in England in the seventeenth century, had transmitted itself to America. Chancery courts were regarded with suspicion, because thought to be less bound by fixed rules, and therefore more liable to be abused by an ambitious or capricious judiciary. Massachusetts, for instance, would permit no such court, though she was eventually obliged to invest her ordinary judges with equitable powers, and to engraft a system of equity on her common law, while still keeping the two systems distinct. Pennsylvania held out still longer, but she also now administers equity, as indeed every civilized State must do in substance, dispensing it, however, through the same judges as those who apply the common law, and having more or less worked it into the texture of the older system. Special chancery courts were abolished in New York, where they had flourished and enriched American jurisprudence by many admirable judgments, by the democratizing Constitution of 1846; and they now exist only in a few of the States, chiefly older Eastern or Southern States, which, in judicial matters, have shown them

selves more conservative than their sisters in the West. In four States only (New York, North Carolina, California, and Idaho) has there been a complete fusion of law and equity, although there are several others which have provided that the legislature shall abolish the distinction between the two kinds of procedure. Many, especially of the newer States, provide for the establishment of tribunals of arbitration and conciliation.

The jurisdiction of the State courts, both civil and criminal, is absolutely unlimited, i.e. there is no appeal from them to the Federal courts, except in certain cases specified by the Federal Constitution, being cases in which some point of Federal law arises. Certain classes of cases are, of course, reserved for the Federal courts and in some the State courts enjoy a concurrent jurisdiction. All crimes, except such as are punishable under some Federal statute, are justiciable by a State court; and it is worth remembering that in most States there exist much wider facilities for setting aside the verdict of a jury finding a prisoner guilty, by raising all sorts of points of law, than are permitted by the law and practice of England, or indeed of any European country. Such facilities have been and are abused, to the great detriment of the community.

One or two other points relating to law and justice in the States require notice. Each State recognizes the judgments of the courts of a sister State, gives credit to its public acts and records, and delivers up to its justice any fugitive from its jurisdiction, permitting him, moreover, to be (if necessary) tried for some other offence than that in respect of which his extradition was obtained. Of course the courts of one State are not bound either by law or usage to follow the reported decisions of those of another State. They use such decisions merely for their own enlightenment, and as some evidence of the common law, just as they use the English law reports.

Most of the States have within the last half century made sweeping changes, not only in their judicial system, but in the form of their law. They have revised and codified their statutes, a corrected edition whereof is issued every few years. They have in many instances adopted codes of procedure, and in some cases have even enacted codes embodying the substance of the common law, and fusing it with the statutes.

Such codes, however, have been condemned by the judgment of the abler and more learned part of the profession, as rendering the law more uncertain and less scientific. But with the masses of the people the proposal is popular, for it holds out a prospect, unfortunately belied by the result in States which, like California, have tried the experiment, of a system whose simplicity will enable the layman to understand the law, and render justice cheaper and more speedy. A really good code might have these happy effects. But it may be doubted whether the codifying States have taken the steps requisite to secure the goodness of the codes they enact.

Important as are the functions of the American judiciary, the powers of a judge are limited by the State constitutions in a manner surprising to Europeans. He is not generally allowed. to charge the jury on questions of fact, but only to state the law. He is sometimes required to put his charge in writing. His power of committing for contempt of court is often restricted. Express rules forbid him to sit in causes wherein he can have any family or pecuniary interest.

I come now to three points, which are not only important in themselves, but instructive as illustrating the currents of opinion which have influenced the peoples of the States. These

are

The method of appointing the judges.

Their tenure of office.

Their salaries.

The remarkable changes that have been made in the two former matters, and the strange practice which now prevails in the latter, are full of significance for the student of modern democracy, full of warning for Europe and the British colonies.

In colonial days the superior judges were appointed by the governors, except in Rhode Island and Connecticut, where the legislature elected them. When, in and after 1776, the States formed their first constitutions, four States,1 besides the two just named, vested the appointment in the legislature, five gave it to the governor with the consent of the council; Delaware gave it to the legislature and president (= governor) in

1 Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

2 Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York.