Of course we can have no courts of justice, under such systems of
lawmaking, and supreme court decisions, as now prevail.
We have a population of fifty to sixty millions; _and not a single court
of justice, State or national!_
But we have everywhere courts of injustice--open and avowed
injustice--claiming sole jurisdiction of all cases affecting men's
rights of both person and property; and having at their beck brute force
enough to compel absolute submission to their decrees, whether just or
unjust.
Can a more decisive or infallible condemnation of our governments be
conceived of, than the absence of all courts of justice, and the
absolute power of their courts of injustice?
Yes, they lie under still another condemnation, to wit, that their
courts are not only courts of injustice, but they are also secret
tribunals; adjudicating all causes according to the secret instructions
of their masters, the lawmakers, and their authorized interpreters,
their supreme courts.
I say _secret tribunals_, and _secret instructions_, because, to the
great body of the people, whose rights are at stake, they are secret to
all practical intents and purposes. They are secret, because their
reasons for their decrees are to be found only in great volumes of
statutes and supreme court reports, which the mass of the people have
neither money to buy, nor time to read; and would not understand, if
they were to read them.
These statutes and reports are so far out of reach of the people at
large, that the only knowledge a man can ordinarily get of them, when he
is summoned before one of the tribunals appointed to execute them, is
to be obtained by employing an expert--or so-called lawyer--to enlighten
him.
This expert in injustice is one who buys these great volumes of statutes
and reports, and spends his life in studying them, and trying to keep
himself informed of their contents. But even he can give a client very
little information in regard to them; for the statutes and decisions are
so voluminous, and are so constantly being made and unmade, and are so
destitute of all conformity to those natural principles of justice which
men readily and intuitively comprehend; and are moreover capable of so
many different interpretations, that he is usually in as great
doubt--perhaps in even greater doubt--than his client, as to what will
be the result of a suit.
The most he can usually say to his client, is this:
Every civil suit must finally be given to one of two persons,
the plaintiff or defendant. Whether, therefore, your cause is a
just, or an unjust, one, you have at least one chance in two,
of gaining it. But no matter how just your cause may be, you
need have no hope that the tribunal that tries it, will be
governed by any such consideration, if the statute book, or the
past decisions of the supreme court, are against you. So, also,
no matter how unjust your cause may be, you may nevertheless
expect to gain it, if the statutes and past decisions are in
your favor. If, therefore, you have money to spend in such a
lottery as this, I will do my best to gain your cause for you,
whether it be a just, or an unjust, one.
If the charge is a criminal one, this expert says to his client:
You must either be found guilty, or acquitted. Whether,
therefore, you are really innocent or guilty, you have at least
one chance in two, of an acquittal. But no matter how innocent
you may be of any real crime, you need have no hope of an
acquittal, if the statute book, or the past decisions of the
supreme court, are against you. If, on the other hand, you have
committed a real wrong to another, there may be many laws on
the statute book, many precedents, and technicalities, and
whimsicalities, through which you may hope to escape. But your
reputation, your liberty, or perhaps your life, is at stake. To
save these you can afford to risk your money, even though the
result is so uncertain. Therefore you had best give me your
money, and I will do my best to save you, whether you are
innocent or guilty.
But for the great body of the people,--those who have no money that they
can afford to risk in a lawsuit,--no matter what may be their rights in
either a civil or criminal suit,--their cases are hopeless. They may
have been taxed, directly and indirectly, to their last dollars, for the
support of the government; they may even have been compelled to risk
their lives, and to lose their limbs, in its defence; yet when they want
its protection,--that protection for which their taxes and military
services were professedly extorted from them,--they are coolly told that
the government offers no justice, nor even any chance or semblance of
justice, except to those who have more money than they.
But the point now to be specially noticed is, that in the case of either
the civil or criminal suit, the client, whether rich or poor, is nearly
or quite as much in the dark as to his fate, and as to the grounds on
which his fate will be determined, as though he were to be tried by an
English Star Chamber court, or one of the secret tribunals of Russia, or
even the Spanish Inquisition.
Thus in the supreme exigencies of a man's life, whether in civil or
criminal cases, where his property, his reputation, his liberty, or his
life is at stake, he is really to be tried by what is, _to him_, at
least, _a secret tribunal_; a tribunal that is governed by what are, _to
him_, _the secret instructions_ of lawmakers, and supreme courts;
neither of whom care anything for his rights of property in a civil
suit, or for his guilt or innocence in a criminal one; but only for
their own authority as lawmakers and judges.
The bystanders, at these trials, look on amazed, but powerless to defend
the right, or prevent the wrong. Human nature has no rights, in the
presence of these infernal tribunals.
Is it any wonder that all men live in constant terror of such a
government as that? Is it any wonder that so many give up all attempts
to preserve their natural rights of person and property, in opposition
to tribunals, to whom justice and injustice are indifferent, and whose
ways are, to common minds, hidden mysteries, and impenetrable secrets.
But even this is not all. The mode of trial, if not as infamous as the
trial itself, is at least so utterly false and absurd, as to add a new
element of uncertainty to the result of all judicial proceedings.
A trial in one of these courts of injustice is a trial by battle,
almost, if not quite, as really as was a trial by battle, five hundred
or a thousand years ago.
Now, as then, the adverse parties choose their champions, to fight their
battles for them.
These champions, trained to such contests, and armed, not only with all
the weapons their own skill, cunning, and power can supply, but also
with all the iniquitous laws, precedents, and technicalities that
lawmakers and supreme courts can give them, for defeating justice,
and accomplishing injustice, can--if not always, yet none but
themselves know how often--offer their clients such chances of
victory--independently of the justice of their causes--as to induce the
dishonest to go into court to evade justice, or accomplish injustice,
not less often perhaps than the honest go there in the hope to get
justice, or avoid injustice.
We have now, I think, some sixty thousand of these champions, who make
it the business of their lives to equip themselves for these conflicts,
and sell their services for a price.
Is there any one of these men, who studies justice as a science, and
regards that alone in all his professional exertions? If there are any
such, why do we so seldom, or never, hear of them? Why have they not
told us, hundreds of years ago, what are men's natural rights of person
and property? And why have they not told us how false, absurd, and
tyrannical are all these lawmaking governments? Why have they not told
us what impostors and tyrants all these so-called lawmakers, judges,
etc., etc., are? Why are so many of them so ambitious to become
lawmakers and judges themselves?
Is it too much to hope for mankind, that they may sometime have courts
of justice, instead of such courts of injustice as these?
If we ever should have courts of justice, it is easy to see what will
become of statute books, supreme courts, trial by battle, and all the
other machinery of fraud and tyranny, by which the world is now ruled.
If the people of this country knew what crimes are constantly committed
by these courts of injustice, they would squelch them, without mercy, as
unceremoniously as they would squelch so many gangs of bandits or
pirates. In fact, bandits and pirates are highly respectable and
honorable villains, compared with the judges of these courts of
injustice. Bandits and pirates do not--like these judges--attempt to
cheat us out of our common sense, in order to cheat us out of our
property, liberty, or life. They do not profess to be anything but such
villains as they really are. They do not claim to have received any
"Divine" authority for robbing, enslaving, or murdering us at their
pleasure. They do not claim immunity for their crimes, upon the ground
that they are duly authorized agents of any such invisible, intangible,
irresponsible, unimaginable thing as "society," or "the State." They do
not insult us by telling us that they are only exercising that authority
to rob, enslave, and murder us, which we ourselves have delegated to
them. They do not claim that they are robbing, enslaving, and murdering
us, solely to secure our happiness and prosperity, and not from any
selfish motives of their own. They do not claim a wisdom so superior to
that of the producers of wealth, as to know, better than they, how their
wealth should be disposed of. They do not tell us that we are the freest
and happiest people on earth, inasmuch as each of our male adults is
allowed one voice in ten millions in the choice of the men, who are to
rob, enslave, and murder us. They do not tell us that all liberty and
order would be destroyed, that society itself would go to pieces, and
man go back to barbarism, if it were not for the care, and supervision,
and protection, they lavish upon us. They do not tell us of the
almshouses, hospitals, schools, churches, etc., which, out of the purest
charity and benevolence, they maintain for our benefit, out of the money
they take from us. They do not carry their heads high, above all other
men, and demand our reverence and admiration, as statesmen, patriots,
and benefactors. They do not claim that we have voluntarily "come into
their society," and "surrendered" to them all our natural rights of
person and property; nor all our "original and natural right" of
defending our own rights, and redressing our own wrongs. They do not
tell us that they have established infallible supreme courts, to whom
they refer all questions as to the legality of their acts, and that they
do nothing that is not sanctioned by these courts. They do not attempt
to deceive us, or mislead us, or reconcile us to their doings, by any
such pretences, impostures, or insults as these. _There is not a single
John Marshall among them._ On the contrary, they acknowledge themselves
robbers, murderers, and villains, pure and simple. When they have once
taken our money, they have the decency to get out of our sight as soon
as possible; they do not persist in following us, and robbing us, again
and again, so long as we produce anything that they can take from us. In
short, they acknowledge themselves _hostes humani generis: enemies of
the human race_. They acknowledge it to be our unquestioned right and
duty to kill them, if we can; that they expect nothing else, than that
we will kill them, if we can; and that we are only fools and cowards, if
we do not kill them, by any and every means in our power. They neither
ask, nor expect, any mercy, if they should ever fall into the hands of
honest men.
For all these reasons, they are not only modest and sensible, but really
frank, honest, and honorable villains, contrasted with these courts of
injustice, and the lawmakers by whom these courts are established.
Such, Mr. Cleveland, is the real character of the government, of which
you are the nominal head. Such are, and have been, its lawmakers. Such
are, and have been, its judges. Such have been its executives. Such is
its present executive. Have you anything to say for any of them?
Yours frankly, LYSANDER SPOONER.
BOSTON, MAY 15, 1886.
THE END.
Transcriber's Notes:
Text in italics was enclosed with underscores (_italics_).
Text in small caps was replaced with ALL CAPS (SMALL CAPS).
On page 22, there was the use of double quotation marks within double
quotation marks. That usage was not changed.
On page 43, "at bank" was replaced "at a bank".
On page 60, "_viz._, 1," was replaced with "_viz._, 1.".
On page 105, "viz." was italized.
On page 65, a period as added after "indebted to".
End of Project Gutenberg's A Letter to Grover Cleveland, by Lysander Spooner