 The national broadcasting company in conjunction with the Fund for Adult Education presents Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. When the American people are intoxicated by passion or carried away by the impetuosity of their ideas, they are checked and stopped by the almost invisible influence of their legal counselors. Lawyers in America are the most powerful existing security against the excesses of democracy. If I were asked where I placed the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesitation that it is not among the rich who have no common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and bar. The Aristocrats of Democracy. A study in American law and lawyers. Item 12 in the series Democracy in America, prepared by the Division of General Education of New York University, under the direction of George Probst, American historian. A series designed to bring to life the America of the 1830s, as recorded by Alexis de Tocqueville, and so to illuminate the image of democracy itself. A study in American law and lawyers. The Aristocrats of Democracy. When Beaumont and I visited America in 1831, we were much impressed by the influence of lawyers in public life. For of course, the government of democracy is favorable to the political power of lawyers. For when the wealthy, the noble and the king are excluded from the government, the lawyers take possession of it in their own right, as it were, since they are the only men of information and sagacity that the people can choose. Well, Tocqueville, you feel that the lawyers are always on the side of order. Lawyers Beaumont aren't afraid of tyranny. What they don't like is arbitrary power. Also, lawyers are trained to rely on precedence, and this makes them very conservative. I think it's rather sweeping to maintain that American lawyers are always conservatives on the side of order. No, I don't say that all members of the legal profession are at all times the friends of order and the opponents of innovation, but merely that most of them usually are. Remember our talk with Mr. Albert Gallatin, who had been President Jefferson, Secretary of the Treasury. Lawyers occupy the first rank in society. They exert a great influence. The result is that lawyers here are rather conservative. But that is surprising. Very often in Europe, they are restless. They often cause disturbances. Lawyers mainly contributed to the overthrow of the French monarchy in 1789. Well, it's different here. Now, of course, if it wasn't for the lawyers, some things might be easier. Our civil laws, for example, should have been revised long ago. But of course, the lawyers profit by all the abuses and obscurities, and so they defend them. It is to the interest of the lawyers to have the laws as unintelligible as possible. Since no one would pay them for advice concerning laws which could be understood, so American lawyers don't improve the civil laws. It is curious for us, two French lawyers, to hear your complaint against the stationary spirit of lawyers and the prejudices they have in favor of existing institutions. Well, Mr. Togbiel, they compose the majority of the members of the legislature. What about your judges? Are they also lawyers? What sort of judges do you have? Well, the magistrates are all taken from among the lawyers. I understand your lawyers form the highest political class and the most cultivated portion of your society. Very true. The bench is sustained only by public opinion, and of course it makes continual efforts to retain it. Its integrity is beyond question. I regard the bench upheld as it is on every occasion by the body of lawyers as the regulator of the irregular movements of our democracy, the part that maintains the balance of the whole machine. And notice this because it's very important. The judges are able to refuse to apply an unconstitutional law, and this means that they are in a sense a political body. The more I think of it, Togbiel, the more I am convinced we are right when we say that America is governed by lawyers. There's no doubt that intelligent Americans are well aware of this. Do you remember Mr. John Latrobe of Baltimore, the lawyer? Mr. Latrobe? Oh, yes. He was the gentleman who told us about elections in America and about the extremely democratic constitution in Maryland. Realistically speaking, gentlemen, there are no political parties in the United States today. No political parties? Not in the European sense. There are no fundamental differences, monarchist versus republicans, for instance, nothing of that sort. Once a party, so-called, gets into power, it directs things very much as its opponents were doing. Oppositions can never actually govern with the principles that get them elected. Everything in America is a question of men rather than parties. There are only those who have the power and those who want to have it. Those who are in and those who are out. A number of Americans have told us, Mr. Latrobe, that the general Jackson party's strength is a danger to property rights and may lead to a military despotism. This despotism exists wholly in the imaginations of the defeated party. Indeed, it is difficult to say what more of liberty they would have than they now enjoy. Each state has its separate sovereignty. And by universal suffrage, or nearly so, all the members of its upper and lower house are elected and its governor chose them. No law can be made or taxes imposed without their consent. Freedom of the press and trial by jury exist in their greatest vigor, while all opinions on political or religious subjects are as free and persons and property as perfectly protected as in any country that ever existed. If the present administration were removed tomorrow and another planted in its place, not a single additional liberty, civil, political or religious, could be granted to the people. Oh, that could not be said of France. But how is this accomplished? What man do the American voters choose? Lawyers. The United States is governed by lawyers. It's they who have almost all the posts. The President, General Jackson, is a soldier. And also, I think a lawyer. Well, anyway, a soldier, mainly. But look at his cabinet. Every single secretary is a lawyer. Yes, gentlemen, for better or worse, the United States is governed by lawyers. But many of these things, Beaumont and I saw for ourselves. For in January of 1832, we traveled by stagecoach from New Orleans to Norfolk and then by steamboat up the Potomac to the national capital, the city of Washington. How well I remember that journey up the Potomac. We spent it in the company of a most wise and intelligent American, Mr. Joel Roberts Poinsett, a former ambassador to Mexico and a personal representative of President Andrew Jackson. And as we near Washington, we questioned Mr. Poinsett about the federal government that we were soon to see for ourselves. Do you really think, Mr. Poinsett, that this complicated federation of states can be made to work? I think it's the only thing that will work. For my part, I don't believe in the duration of a great republic unless it be a federation. Of course, gentlemen, the Constitution of the United States is a difficult and complicated instrument. I understand that, Mr. Poinsett. Everything must last, I suppose, on the people's choice of representatives. Well, mostly they choose men who flatter them. If voting were limited, things might be better. I only say might. Anyway, it doesn't signify. It's in the nature of a democracy that the qualifications broaden irresistibly until everyone has the vote. Well, universal suffrage is by no means a guarantee of the wisdom of popular choice, whatever its advantages may be. This is not one of them. And I suppose a poor selection gives rise to poor laws and poor government? Not nearly as much as you'd think, Mr. Poinsett. Why not? Well, these assemblies always contain some men of talent. From the first days of the session, these overwhelm the others and dominate business entirely. It's really they who make and discuss the laws. The others vote blindly. We have had representatives who didn't know how to read or write. I suppose many people don't care. But surely they must care about the president. Doesn't the nomination for president excite real political passions? It certainly puts the interested parties into a great commotion. It makes the newspapers make a lot of noise. But the mass of the people remain indifferent. The president has, in the last analysis, so little influence on their happiness. To tell you the truth, Mr. Tocqueville, it's Congress that governs, in my opinion. Well, one or two strong presidents might make a difference, you know? Oh, Beaumont, I can hardly wait to get to Washington and see all this for myself. Well, you won't have long to wait. You've been looking at Washington for the last five minutes. There, on your right. What? Washington? Is this the capital of the United States? Sure, it's the outskirts. Haven't you noticed the houses? A few cabins dotted about on an arid plain. Look at it with the eyes of an American and you'll see something very different. We predict a population of a million very soon. In the meantime, Washington, whatever it may look like today with its 20,000 people, is still the home of the three branches of government, the president, the Congress and the Supreme Court. We scarcely arrived in Washington when the French minister took us to the White House in the evening to present us to Andrew Jackson, the president of the United States. Even though we were very young and unimportant and completely unknown assistant magistrates in France, we were able to see the president. To our surprise, any stranger or foreign visitor can secure an invitation to a White House party simply by leaving his card. We saw the president on a day of public reception, but during our whole visit, only two or three persons entered. What do you think of this palace? Hardly a palace, Beaumont. The president has no guards watching the door. In Paris, I think we'd simply call this a fine private residence. I like the decoration. It is simple, tasteful, but less brilliant than the offices of our French ministers. The president will see you now, gentlemen. Well, Beaumont, this is the Democrat we have heard so much about, the man of Aaron. Yes, the deadly dualist, the victor of New Orleans. Mr. President, I have the honor to present to you Count Alexis de Tocqueville. Sir, it is an honor. Pleased to meet you, Mr. Tocqueville. And I have the honor also to present Mr. Gustave de Beaumont. Sir, I am enchanted and overwhelmed. Pleased to meet you, Mr. Beaumont. Well, gentlemen, how long have you been in America? Since last May, sir. Last May. Very good. Therefore, we have been here about nine months, sir. Nine months? Yes, good. How do you like our country? We are overwhelmed, sir. Most people, I believe, are. It's an overwhelming country. Take a glass of Madeira with me. Thank you, sir. Have you been making any particular study of our institutions, gentlemen? Monsieur de Tocqueville and Monsieur de Beaumont are here to study American prisons. Most interesting. Well, gentlemen, here's health. Thank you, sir. Have you seen much of the country? As much as possible, sir. We have traveled extensively in New England and down to Mississippi. Well, gentlemen, then you've seen the west, I'm sure. I certainly congratulate you. And our gentlemen, if you'll excuse me. I hope so. It's been a great pleasure to meet you gentlemen from France. I hope that seeing America has enlarged your views. There never have been 13 millions of people associated together in one political body who enjoyed so much freedom and happiness as the people of these United States. Perhaps you'll be able to get to the White House again sometime during your stay in Washington. Well, Beaumont? Well, Tocqueville? General Jackson? An old man, what is he, 66? But full of vigor. Not a man of genius. That was the dullest interview of our trip. Tocqueville, you underestimate General Jackson. If I do Beaumont, so do all of the enlightened people who have told us that General Jackson is only able to flatter the passions of the people. Only able to flatter the people. But that's it. I think that the presidential leadership of General Jackson, the popularity of General Jackson, is the most mysterious and remarkable thing in this democracy, which apparently seems to be governed by lawyers. In every country, military glory has a prestige the masses can't resist. Yes, but does that explain General Jackson's presidential leadership? I think not. I think President Jackson is very artful. He's the first president to make use of the press. You know, every guest at the White House dinner is provided with two forks, steel and silver, to take his choice. Jackson uses the steel, the forks, and he's known as the man of iron. General Jackson's great achievement is in making himself a popular personality. I watched him closely, perhaps because this afternoon, while at the Capitol, I overheard an extraordinary conversation between two senators about the presidency. General Jackson understands the people of the United States 20 times better than his antagonists. And if his successor has but half the same tact, the Whigs may give up hope of governing the country for the next half century. Randy? Delighted. But you ought not to say tact. For that alone ought to do it. He must have the same manners as Jackson, addressing himself to the feelings of every man with whom he comes in contact, carrying the conviction of honesty, while the firmness of his character inspires his friends with the hope of success. Jackson's mottos are, never sacrifice a friend to an enemy, and make yourself strong with your friends and you needn't fear your foes. These loyalties must be borne in a man. They must be spontaneous and felt as such by the people, or they lose the best part of their effect. All the tact in the world will not answer. But when we see a man as prudent, we become cautious ourselves, and then farewell to popularity. Well, Senator, when the people give their vote to a man, they never do so on a rigid examination of his political principles. They haven't the time or disposition. And it's useless to attempt to persuade the people to a different course by a long and tedious argument. My experience as a senator is that the masses act in politics pretty much as they do in religion. Every doctrine is with them a matter of faith, received principally on account of their trust in the man. If a man fails to captivate their hearts, no reasoning in the world is capable of filling the vacancy. Precisely so. The people have faith in Andrew Jackson. General Jackson is popular just because he is General Jackson. With this kind of popularity, it is in vain to contend. Very remarkable. It is a pure gift of heaven, and a self-educated man into the bargain. What has his education to do with it, sir? Not much, just true. Nothing, sir. People complain that General Jackson can't write a decent English sentence. I don't believe it. He's a qualified lawyer. Is education the standard to measure the capacity of a political chief, especially an American one? No, sir. I say again, General Jackson understands the people better than any president before him. All his deeds are in unison with his political doctrines and carried through, notwithstanding the enormous opposition that wealth and talent put in the way of their execution. There's certainly no doubt whatever that the impulse that General Jackson has given to the democracy of America will always continue to be felt and impelled the government in a popular direction. I agree, Senator. Not that I approve of all his political principles, for I don't. But I like old Hickory, and would rather see him president than any other. General Jackson has a good memory. He never forgets a man who has rendered him a service, nor does he ever cease to remember an injury. Naturally. General Jackson introduced the doctrine of reward and punishment, and has got along with it better than almost friends anticipated. He has appointed his friends to office and dismissed his antagonists the moment they took an active part in politics. That principle, sir, is the proper one to go upon. You're right. The hope of reward and the fear of punishment govern men in politics and religion. Oh, sir, more brandy. Thank you, Senator. And a toast to General Jackson. General Jackson. Listen, he was wide awake and wasn't scared of trifles. For, well, he knew what aim we take with our Kentucky rifles. And down there stood a little force. None wished it to be greater. For every man was half a horse and half an alligator. Oh, Kentucky. The Hunters of Kentucky. Oh, Kentucky. The Hunters of Kentucky. After we saw the president we saw the Congress. We stayed two weeks in Washington in January of 1832 meeting the Secretary of State, congressmen, senators, having dinner with ex-president John Quincy Adams and seeing the Capitol. Mr. Poinsett was our guide and we spent almost all our days in the Senate and the legislature. Let me take you into the House of Representatives. Mr. Poinsett, we are the House of Representatives. This is a great place for talk, gentlemen. During the Revolutionary War David and Mecklenburg County Virginia are county then and now celebrated for reasons. Who are the leaders, Mr. Poinsett, among the congressmen? Well, nine-tenths of the congressmen are lawyers, man accustomed to public speaking. Do you know, Mr. Poinsett, I am convinced that the profession of law is the only aristocratic element that can be peacefully combined with democracy and usefully and permanently combined. Oh, come, Dogville, lawyers, and such wonderful fellows as all that. I know all about their inherent effects, but without this admixture of lawyer-like sobriety with the democratic principle institutions could long be maintained. I am accustomed to think of lawyers as something of a nuisance, but you, Mr. Tocqueville, speak of them as if they were essential to make democracy work. That is it, exactly. I cannot believe that this republic could hope to exist at the present time if the influence of lawyers in public business did not increase in proportion to the power of the people. Well, it's true that the legal profession, Mr. Tocqueville, is the nursery of our congress. What is this issue by far than now? I believe they are talking about a horse. Amy Darden's horse. It's a celebrated case. The case of a horse in Virginia that was requisitioned over 50 years ago in the War of Independence and somehow never got paid for. It'll need an act of Congress to settle. It's a big emotional issue. This fellow is Mr. Claiborne, a representative from Virginia. Listen to him go. The people, Mr. Speaker, have equity jurisdiction. They are sovereign. We represent them here. We will take chance with jurisdiction then and pay this debt. Sir, at the tone adopted in speaking of Mrs. Darden's horse, Romulus, he was a full-blooded Arabian, beautiful in color, his stiff, gay and lively, his high bespoke spirit and docility. White nostrils breathing fire made him a war horse whom Bonaparte himself would have been proud to have written at the Battle of Vienna. We are told that if we pass this bill we may be called on to pass many similar claims. I have no fears of that sort. Let on, it is time to do so. A laugh is fleeting. The claim has now descended to Darden's children and unless it be soon discharged. It is striking that this great deliberative body should spend so much time on a long-dead horse. It's not the horse. It's the principal. Oh, precisely. American parliamentary eloquence is a very remarkable thing and it is devoted to gratifying a congressman's constituents. And what, Mr. Poinsett, goes on in that part of the Capitol building? Today, nothing. But that gentleman is where the third branch of the government meets. The Supreme Court under the powerful direction of Chief Justice Marshall. What a task they have. I have gradually learned that the peace, the prosperity and the very existence of the Union are vested in the hands of those federal judges. Without them, the Constitution would be a dead letter. The executive appeals to them for assistance against the encroachments of the legislative power. The legislature demands their protection against the assaults of the executors. They defend the Union from the disobedience of the states, the states from the exaggerated claims of the Union, the public interest against private interests and the conservative spirit of stability against the fickleness of the democracy. The Supreme Court judges, especially as led by Justice Marshall, do have enormous power. Yes, but it is the power of public opinion. They are all powerful as long as the people respect the law. But they would be impotent against popular neglect or content of the law. They must be statesmen, as well as judges. Yes, they must be wise to discern the signs of the times. Not afraid to brave those obstacles that can be subdued, but at the same time, ready to turn away from the current when it threatens to sweep them off and the supremacy of the Union and the obedience due to the law along with them. I think that if the Supreme Court is ever composed of impotent or bad men, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war. In America, the lawyers have enormous influence upon society. The spirit of the law gradually penetrates to the lowest classes. The whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate. The laws help to form the spirit, the morals and the character of the people. All citizens are obliged to borrow in their daily controversies the ideas and even the language peculiar to judicial proceedings. The language of the law thus becomes a common tongue. The lawyers of the United States form a party which is but little feared and scarcely perceived, which has no badge peculiar to itself, which adapts itself with great flexibility to all social movements. The aristocracy of America is on the bench and at the bar. The legal profession extends over the whole community and penetrates into all the classes, acting upon the country imperceptibly and finally fashioning it to suit its own purposes. You have just heard The Aristocrats of Democracy, a study in American law and lawyers, item 12 in a series based on Alexis de Trocville's History in America. This series, presented by the national broadcasting company, was prepared by the division of general education of New York University under the direction of George Probst, American historian, produced in the studios of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by Andrew Allen, scripted by Lista Sinclair and George E. Probst, music by Lucio Agostini. Teachers of American history and American civilization and adult education leaders are interested in using these dramatizations and other materials which are available for study and discussion at a reasonable charge. For information, write to American Foundation for Continuing Education, Post Office Box 749, Chicago 90, Illinois. Now this is Ben Grower inviting you to listen next week to The Happy Republic, item 13 on Democracy in America. This program was pre-recorded in the NBC Radio Network presentation.