|
Conversation with a lawyer from Montgomery
I traveled for two days with this young man. I have forgotten
his name which anyhow is very obscure. But I think I ought to note the conversation down. It is stamped with much
practical good sense. Besides what he says is corroborated by several pieces of subsequent information:
The erroneous opinion is spreading daily more and more
among us, he said, that the people can do everything and is capable of ruling almost directly. From that springs an
unbelievable weakening of anything that could look like executive power; it is the outstanding characteristic and the
capital defect of our Constitution, and of those of all the new States in the South-West of the Union....
Is it true then that the ways of the people of Alabama are as
violent as is said?
Yes. There is no one here but carries arms under his clothes.
At the slightest quarrel, knife or pistol comes to hand. These things happen continually; it is a semibarbarous state of
society.
Q. But when a man is killed like that, is his assassin not
punished?
A. He is always brought to trial, and always acquitted by the
jury, unless there are greatly aggravating circumstances. I cannot remember seeing a single man who was a little known,
pay with his life for such a crime. This violence has become accepted. Each juror feels that he might, on leaving the
court, find himself in the same position as the accused, and he acquits. Note that the jury is chosen from all the free-holders, however small their property may be. So it is the people that judges itself, and its prejudices in this matter stand
in the way of its good sense. Besides, my informant added, I have been no better myself than another in my time; look
at the scars that cover my head (we did see the marks of four or five deep cuts). Those are knife blows I have been
given.
Q. But you went to the law?
A. My God! No. I tried to give as good in return.
Q. Do the people choose good representatives?
A. No, in general they choose people on their own level who
flatter them. I have no doubt of the advantage that would come from restricting the franchise. The choices would
certainly be better. But it is in the nature of things in a democratic State that the franchise should be extended by an
irresistible movement until everyone is a voter, as happens with us. I predict that in France, too, you will not be able
to stop yourselves indefinitely.
Q. But from these bad choices there must result bad laws and
bad government?
A. Not nearly so much as one might expect at first glance.
There are always some men of talent in our assemblies; from the first days these overwhelm the others and absolutely
dominate business. It is really they who make and discuss the laws. The rest vote as they do. We have had
representatives who could not read or write.
Q. Do you yourself see a great difference between the social
state of the North and that of the South?
A. Immense. We Southerners have perhaps more natural
advantages than those of the North, but we are much less energetic and, especially, less persevering. Our education is
much neglected. We have no regular school system; a third of our population cannot read. One sees non of the same
care given to the needs of society, or the same thought for the future.
Q. What power has religious feeling among you?
A. There is infinitely less morality with us than in the North.
But religious feeling properly so called is perhaps more enthusiastic with us. There is religion in the North, here
fanaticism. The Methodist sect predominates.
Q. What is the majority opinion in Alabama about the
tariff?
A. The majority is strongly opposed to the tariff. But very
attached to the Union. The nullificators of South Carolina find no support among us.
Q. What do you think of the use of the jury?
A. I think the jury useful in criminal cases. I think it useful
in civil cases when it is a question of facts clearly distinguished from law or appreciations of morality. I think for
instance that all questions of damages or defamation ought to be tried by jury. But when it comes to civil matters
properly so called, to questions of law, and to the examination of legal documents, I think the jury is detestable, and
would much prefer the judges alone. One of the disadvantages of our juries is that they are drawn from too small areas
(the counties). The jurors know about the matter before it is argued. It is judged before it is heard and judged in a
tavern.
When we got to Montgomery, we heard that a man had just
been killed by a pistol shot in the street.
(Tocqueville, p. 102)
|
