titled to receive a patent therefor; that plaintiff is entitled to purchase said lands and to receive a certificate.

Judgment affirmed.

Geo. A. Nourse, for appellant.

Roche & Robinson, for respondent.

IN City of Sacramento vs. Nat. Gold Bank of D. O. Mills & Co. (an unwritten opinion), the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court below-dismissing the action— submitted upon these facts: The city of Sacramento, by an ordinance passed in June, 1872, required the defendant to take out a city license of one hundred dollars quarterly, in advance, for the privilege of transacting, conducting, and carrying on the business of banking (the same not being a savings bank) within the limits of said city; that the defendant is a corporation, organized and incorporated under the laws of the United States, and that the invested capital in said banking business exceeds six thousand dollars, and that the defendant has failed and refused to take out said license; and further, that the defendant is a National Gold Bank, organized under and pursuant to the Act of Congress passed February 25, 1863, and the acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto; that its capital stock is three hundred thousand dollars, all of which is invested in United States bonds, not subject to taxation; that all of said capital stock has been subscribed and paid for, and is held and owned by private persons.

IN Commonwealth vs. Mink, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, November term, 1877, it was held, that suicide being unlawful and criminal as malum in se, any attempt to commit it is likewise unlawful and criminal; and if one attempting it kills another, though not intending his death, the act is criminal homicide, and, at the least, manslaughter. (Reg. vs. Doody, 6 Cox, C. C. 463; Reg. vs. Burges, Leight & Care, 258, S. C. 9 Cox, C. C. 247.)

OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

Governments are necessary only because men are imperfect. If all were honest-were disposed to do unto others as they would have others do unto them, and were capable of discerning just what is right under all circumstances-laws and officers to enforce them would be useless. So long, however, as men remain what they are-weak, selfish, avaricious, passionate, ignorant, and often vicious-there must be government, which means, simply, that certain rules must be laid down defining the rights of person and property; that after those rules are put into words, there must be officials empowered to apply them to individual cases, deciding all matters in doubt, and other officials to enforce obedience to the laws so interpreted. Thus arises the three great divisions of sovereignty into the legislative or law-making power, the judicial or law-interpreting power, and the executive or law-enforcing power.

Our republican system is based upon the theory that the separation of these powers into different branches of government, so that no one of the three classes of officials shall exercise any essential part of the functions belonging to another, is necessary to the liberty of the people. The attempt to carry out this theory has made a very complicated and expensive plan of government, requiring numerous officials, with frequent elections and various checks to prevent abuse of power and malfeasance in office. We have a legislature which is the direct representative of the sovereign people, and is supposed to be the embodiment of their wisdom. This body can make or unmake laws, restricted only by the terms of the fundamental law. It is the will of the people putting in motion the whole machinery of government, subject to the check which the Executive may interpose by a veto that can be overcome by a two-thirds vote, and subject, further, to the more absolute check which the judicial department can give by declaring its acts unconstitutional. As all measures must originate with the legislative department, that is, of course, the superior power. The judiciary merely

interprets its will, and the executive enforces it. In addition to the legislative officials, we must have courts enough to inquire into all infractions of the law, and to try all causes of action arising between individuals, giving each a patient hearing. And then we must have a multitude of clerks, sheriffs, constables, policemen, and soldiers to assist the courts and carry out their decrees. Expensive and complicated as this plan of government is, however, no American citizen, who believes that liberty is above all price, would think of exchanging it for the simpler and cheaper but despotic plan by which a single individual and his dependents have the power of making, interpreting, and enforcing the laws. It only remains for us to scrutinize the machinery we have adopted, and see wherein it may be improved from time to time, simplifying it where it can be made more simple without weakening its republicanism, and changing it in any way to increase its efficiency without clothing any officer with too much power or discretion.

It is not my purpose in this article to deal with the legislative or executive branches of the State Government, but to discuss the judicial system only. Of that I wish to write in the view which I entertain, that the purpose of government is to secure the general welfare of the governed, and that there should, therefore, be as little governing as possible. The great problem for the practical statesman to solve in this country is to provide full protection to all impartially, and at the same time to furnish sufficient safeguards against the designs of the ambitious on the one hand and the dishonest on the other. This must be done by measures. Putting good men in office will not do it. Good men are sometimes weak, sometimes ignorant, often make mistakes, and too often become corrupt after obtaining office. Turning one party out of power and putting another in, is apt to be merely a change of thieves. Human nature is the same in all parties, and the world over it is governed chiefly by self-interest. In office or out of office, rich or poor, capitalist or laborer, lawyer or client, this is the great lever that moves the world. Men have other motives-as patriotism,

love, revenge, and the like- but in the end, and in ninetynine cases out of a hundred, they yield to this. We must, then, make it the interest of officials to be faithful to their trust. If we want competent judges we must make it the interest of competent lawyers to be judges.

In devising a plan of a judicial system, no care should be spared to make it as simple as possible, and at the same time to make it capable of meeting the wants of the people promptly. This is by no means an easy task, as we may see by the history of the many attempts heretofore made in this country and in England. In this State we have come far short of it. Our system is both complicated and inefficient. We have no less than eleven different grades of courts: 1. The Court of Impeachment, composed of forty Senators elected for four years. 2. A Supreme Court of five judges elected for ten years. 3. Twenty-three district judges elected for six years. 4. Fifty-two county and probate judges elected for four years. 5. One county judge elected for four years. 6. One probate judge elected for four years. 7. One judge of a municipal criminal court elected for four years. 8. One judge of a city criminal court. 9. One judge of a municipal court of appeals. 10. Justices of the peace. 11. Police courts. In the LAW JOURNAL for November 24, 1877, is a reference to this system more at length, defining in detail the jurisdiction of these courts as fixed by the constitution and the statutes.

It has been found by experience that this system is not only complicated, but it is inefficient. The trial courts do not transact the business before them fast enough. Cases accumulate on the calendars, delaying litigants, greatly to their annoyance, and often to their ruin. The crowded calendars necessitate haste on the part of the judges, and they are frequently forced to decide causes without a thorough understanding of them. In consequence a great many appeals are taken, crowding the calendar of the Supreme Court. That Court often finds errors, reverses judgments, and sends the cases back for new trials. In this way a citizen who is compelled to invoke the aid of the courts for justice is sometimes delayed for years and impoverished by the costs of the

litigation. This should not be so. Perhaps it can not be altogether avoided under any system. But we can certainly devise some machinery to lessen the evil.

I propose the following plan:

1. Increase the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace to cases involving $1,000 and less, instead of $300 and less, as at present, and to all cases of misdemeanor. Permit trials by jury in these courts, and new trials, but allow appeals upon questions of law only. Make them courts of record, and prescribe educational qualifications for the office of justice of the peace. In this way summary justice may be had in the great majority of cases, to the immense relief of the higher courts and to the advantage of all.

2. For the district, county, probate, and criminal courts, substitute municipal courts-one for each county or city, and county capable of expansion into as many branches as may be necessary. In small counties one judge can attend to all the business--civil, probate, and criminal. In larger counties there may be a branch, to be styled the Municipal Probate Court, or the Municipal Criminal Court. In the city and county of San Francisco there may be a Municipal Probate Court, a Municipal Criminal Court, and as many Municipal Courts for civil cases as the business may require, to be designated Municipal Court No. 1, No. 2, and so on. Give the Municipal Court jurisdiction of all cases of felony, of civil causes involving more than $1,000, of cases at law which involve the title or possession of real property, of the legality of any tax, assessment or municipal fine, of special cases-in short, of all cases not within the jurisdiction of the Justices of the Peace or Police Courts, together with the usual jurisdiction as to writs. Let it also have appellate jurisdiction of cases from the Justices' Courts, and allow appeals from its decisions in all cases to the Supreme Court upon questions of law alone.

3. Make the Supreme Court to consist of nine justices to begin with, the number to be increased or diminished at any time upon a popular vote at a general election, after a vote to that effect by two-thirds of a full Legislature, such change