or local taxation, irregularities committed by government officials, and similar acts. They are therefore a somewhat original kind of tribunal, in which the State is both judge and party to the action. In the United States — or in England — no such courts would be possible. Administrative treatises and vari ous commentaries declare that this system is necessary in France, and they strive at great length to prove what they assert. They ought to add that any system more calculated to operate unfairly could not be devised. These courts seldom decide a case upon its merits, and they do not appear specially anx ious to get at the facts. (Evidence of this assertion could easily be furnished.) Alongside these civil and administrative jurisdictions there is another, closely allied to the former. I refer to the machinery for dealing with criminal cases. I propose to pass over this branch of the subject, although I think it desirable to throw occasionally some light upon the manner in which this machin ery works. What tells against a satisfactory administration of justice in France is that every accused person is looked upon as guilty. This wrong tendency is not the result of in tentional ill-will upon the part of anybody, but is the consequence of a badly ordered judicial system. There are two other jurisdictions to be mentioned — the military and the naval. Both of these have a military character. They were long considered worthy of esteem, respect, and even admiration. One must have attended a sitting of a court-martial before which a soldier is brought for a proved and confessed crime in order to get an idea of the extreme care with which the proceedings are conduc ted. Everything that can strengthen the defense is heard with the greatest attention, and when sentence is passed, it is difficult not to be moved by the way in which it is done. Military law is hard, as everybody knows;
the cruel word death is found in it very fre quently; but at the fatal moment, the president's voice, so steady on parade, trembles and falters in a way that shows what it costs him to pronounce the sentence that is to banish a member of the family. Harsh as military law is, it seems less so than civil law. The private soldier is tried by officers, but the court also comprises a man belonging to the ranks, and it is he who speaks first when the time arrives to decide the fate of the ac cused. As a matter of fact, military execu tions are uncommon in France. For about a dozen years there appears to be no record of a single one having taken place, the death sentence having always been commuted. Proposals to relax the rigors of military law, and even to abolish courts-martial, have often been made. It is always pleasant to see a severe law made less so, but there is a differ ence between amendment and repeal. Possi bly the day may come when courts-martial will be dispensed with in time of peace — not only in France, but in English-speaking countries. At present, there are in France about three thousand two hundred and sixty civil courts, not including the commercial courts, the judges of which are unpaid, or the coun cils of experts. To this number must be added one court of appeal, sixteen courts of first instance, and one hundred and two courts (justices de paix) in Algeria, making alto gether three thousand three hundred and seventy-nine tribunals for dispensing justice. I might also add the police courts which ex ist in each district, whose powers are con fined, as they are elsewhere, to punishing trivial offenses. Disregarding these and the peace courts, which are little more than con ciliation courts, or courts dealing with little disputes about boundaries, and matters of a similar character, and which are incompetent in cases involving more than three hundred
