they be selected only from among the leaders at the bar. Nor is
the right of the individual against the State deemed so sacred
under English as under American institutions. It cannot be in
any country where an hereditary aristocracy has from ancient
times had a share in government. As has been seen, the English
practice in this respect for nearly a hundred years was adopted
in the courts of the United States, but public sentiment finally
pronounced against it. Much less could it be safely followed in
the States, where criminal courts are often held by judges of
little ability, less learning, and inferior standing at the bar,
to which, after the expiration of a brief term, perhaps of but a
year, they will return should they fail to secure a party
renomination.

The same reasons, if in less degree, support a liberal right of
appeal in cases involving property only, and oppose restrictions
based only on the amount in controversy. Americans could never
tolerate keeping their appellate courts for the trial of large
causes only. There must be no rich men's courts. There
certainly must be none to which a claim of right founded on a
constitutional provision cannot be carried up, however trifling
in pecuniary value may be the matter in demand.

Most appeals fail. There are few in which the counsel who takes
them are fully confident of success. Every lawyer of large
experience knows that he has often won when he expected to lose,
and lost when he expected to prevail. There are not many cases
involving large pecuniary interests or strong personal feeling
that are not appealed if there is any color for it. The
proportion of appeals which are successful will generally be not