Summary of the Number of Judges, Salaried and Unsalaried, of certain countries, together with the proportions per 100,000 of estimated population. Some remarks may be made on these figures which can be, as already stated, only approximately correct. Obviously the figures for those foreign countries tell of judicial systems very unlike ours; systems with far more salaried judges than with us, and with assistant judicial functionaries unknown here; systems with fewer unpaid magistrates than are found in England. NOTE. It is difficult to obtain full and accurate information as to the total number of judges in the United States of America. There exists a Federal as well as a State judicial system; and the term "judge" is used somewhat loosely. The circumstances of the various States vary so much that figures which would include those for New York and Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Dakota would not be instructive. I have been kindly furnished with a copy of the Register of the Department of Justice at Washington, which gives the number of Federal judges as follows: In England the Courts of first instance consist of one judge; this holds good of the superior as well as the inferior Courts; the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, s. 17, declares that "every action and proceeding in the High Court, etc., shall, so far as is practicable and convenient, be heard, etc., before a single judge." This is not true of Continental States, in all of which the Courts (with some exceptions) consist of three or more judges. As to France, M. Garsonnet observes Un autre caractère des juridictions Francaises c'est quelles se composent presque toutes de plusieurs juges et ne peuvent juger valablement que si un certain nombre d'entre eux ont pris part au jugement. La pluralité de juges a toujours été reputée chez nous une garantie très efficace de bonne justice. M. Garsonnet mentions five exceptions, of which the only important one is the case of juges de paix.1 A tribunal of first instance is composed of a president, one or more vice-presidents, judges, and juges suppléants; there being three, four, seven, eight, nine, ten, or twelve judges, and there being three juges suppléants in Courts of three or four judges, four in those of seven or ten, ten in those of twelve judges.2 No judgment of a Court of first instance can be given by fewer than three judges, including the president, in civil and correctional matters, or by more than six.3 Each Court of Appeal has in addition to a president and presidents of chambers, at least twenty counsellors and at most forty. In the Courts of Appeal no decree (arrêt) can be given in civil matters by fewer than seven counsellors including the president, and in criminal matters by fewer than five counsellors, the president included.1 The Cour de Cassation is composed of forty-nine members. Each chamber can judge only with a minimum of eleven members.5 In Germany much the same system prevails. The one judge is the exception; a tribunal consisting of three or more judges is normal. That was held in the discussion on the Judicial Organisation Statute of 1877 to be the 1 Traité, etc., de Procédure, i. 67. See also the interesting note as to the systems prevalent in other countries. 2 Garsonnet, i. 104. 3 Ibid. i. 114. ▲ Ibid. i. 138. 5 Ibid. i. 159. The number of judges has greatly increased in France. It appears that there were about four hundred tribunals of first instance in France in 1815 (Réflexions sur la Proposition tendante à la Réduction des Tribunaux, p. 4). There are now more than ten times as many. I take this from M. Hanotaux's "Impressions de France," Revue des Deux Mondes, 1901, p. 23. With reference to the Department of Aisne, with 541,000 inhabitants, he says: "Le Département de l'Aisne relève de la Cour d'Appel d'Asnières. Laon n'qu'un tribunal de première instance ainsi que les autres arrondissements. Cela fait dont 5 tribunaux de best guarantee of justice. In the Amstgerichte one judge administers justice; but the tribunal is, as a rule, composed of two members. Usually three judges sit, but in some cases seven is the minimum (Arts. 77, 81, 109, and 140 of the Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz). The Italian civil tribunals decide by three members; the Courts of Appeal by five. The Italian Corti di Cassazione sits with the number of seven members. In some of the Austrian Courts three form the minimum; in the Oberlandesgerichte five form a quorum (Arts. 7 and 8 of the Law of 1895). One consequence is that, as the above table shows, the numbers of salaried judges greatly exceed in Continental countries those in England. The contrast between the latter and, say, France is remarkable. A further contrast is in the salaries of the judges. I give a few examples : The juges de paix are divided into nine classes, with remuneration ranging from £320 (in Paris) to £72 elsewhere. première instance avec 76 presidents, juges, et greffiers. En autre il y a des tribunaux de Commerce à Saint Quentin, Choissy, Verbins, Soissons, des conseils de prudhommes à Saint Quentin, à Bohain et à Guise." Contrast these figures with the number of local Courts in, say, Gloucestershire or Somersetshire, with a similar population. As to the local Courts in Germany, see Introduction by M. Dubarle to his translation of the Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz. In carrying out the Law of 1877 were suppressed one supreme tribunal (with 73 members), 14 First Courts of Appeal (with 14 first presidents, 136 vice-presidents, and counsellors), 39 tribunals of first instance (with 127 judges). GERMANY. ... each 700 each 600 President of the Reichsgericht (with allowance for rent) ... The remuneration of the presidents of the Oberlandesgerichte vary from £427 to £800; presidents of chambers from £306 to £700; counsellors, £200 to £600. In the Landgerichte the salaries of the presidents range from about £200 to £500 or £600.1 The judicial remuneration in Italy is even smaller, as appears above. A characteristic of the remuneration of the judges in Sweden, as explained in Dr. Carlson's interesting memorandum, is that they are paid partly in fees by the parties. Another peculiarity is that the judges in country districts. are better paid than those in towns. It is unnecessary for me to draw attention to the contrast between the above salaries and the judicial salaries in England (e.g., the Lord Chief Justice, £8,000; the Master of the Rolls, £6,000; the judges of the Supreme Court, £5,000). Nor need I add that the above figures, important though they are, are by no means conclusive as to the comparative cost of the administration of justice. I take these figures from M. Dubarle's Code d'Organisation Judiciaire Allemand. The subsequent changes are, I understand, slight. EXTRA-TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HONG-KONG. [Contributed by A. M. LATTER, ESQ.] To judge correctly of the success of the extra-territorial system it is necessary to watch its workings in a community essentially cosmopolitan, and probably there is nowhere to be found a more mixed collection of nationalities than in the treaty ports along the coast and rivers of China. The whole system culminates in the large port of Shanghai, where there are resident from seven to eight thousand foreigners and many more than half a million Chinese. It is here that his Britannic Majesty's Supreme Court for China and Corea sits, which is a Court both of first instance in Shanghai and of appellate jurisdiction from the Consular Courts of other treaty ports in China. The judicial centre of all the other Powers is also in Shanghai. Basis of the Extra-territorial Court. The broad principle on which the system of extra-territorial Courts rests is that in the case of any litigation, dispute, or charge, whether civil or criminal, the tribunal shall be the tribunal of the defendant's nationality, administering the laws at that time in force in the country of that defendant. That right was secured to the British by the treaty of Tientsin, 1858, Arts. 15, 16, and 17; to the French by the treaty of Tientsin, 1861, Art. 35; and all the other Powers have at various times secured similar privileges. By the operation of the most favoured nation clause, Art. 24 of the treaty of Tientsin, 1858, between China and the United States of America has secured to European Powers the right of trying claims against their subjects by their own officers sitting alone without the intervention or assistance of the Chinese authorities. Claims, however, against Chinese subjects are tried by the Chinese magistrate with the assistance of an assessor of the plaintiff's nationality. (See, as to the workings of a similar system in Japan under the old treaties, The Imperial Japanese Government v. P. and O. Company, 1895, A.C. pp. 652, 653.) "Quot Gentes, tot fora."-The result is that there are as many Courts sitting in Shanghai as there are nationalities, and that claims must always be presented in the national Court of him against whom the claim is made. It is proposed to consider these Courts, first as touching their inherent power and capacity, and secondly as to the nature of the law administered in them. |