七、壮志未酬
海斯与蒂尔顿的总统职位之争,最终由国会两院与最高法院派员组成的特别委员会裁定解决,菲尔德也是委员之一。委员会的投票,完全源自党派立场;作为民主党成员,菲尔德很自然地投给了蒂尔顿。
像林肯任命的其他大法官一样,进入最高法院的菲尔德依然没有放弃自己的政治理想。他曾两次谋求民主党总统候选人提名,但均败北。1888年,首席法官韦特(Morrison Waite)逝世后,适逢民主党总统克利夫兰(Grover Cleveland)在任,在最高法院历练二十余载的菲尔德,本以为首席大法官一职非己莫属,谁知半路杀出个名不见经传的富勒(Melville Fuller),“横刀夺爱”。那两年,对于70多岁的菲尔德而言,确实流年不利,祸不单行,不但失去了心爱的首席大法官职位,而且险遭仇家刺杀。
菲尔德的仇家不是别人,正是他在加州最高法院任上的同事、当时的首席法官戴维·特里。两人同是在1849年到加州“淘金”,同任加州法官。1859年,特里因与加州联邦参议员布罗德里克发生冲突,与其决斗,将其射杀。作为布罗德里克的好友,菲尔德立下毒誓,绝不放过特里。当时的加州,地处美国边陲,决斗恶习尚未根除,决斗杀人并不犯法。后来,菲尔德荣升加州首席法官,继而擢任联邦最高法院大法官,主持包括加州在内的第十巡回区。离职后的特里,也开始自己开业。在他的客户中,有一位漂亮女子,自称是内华达州前联邦参议员的妻子,这位参议员刚刚去世,留下大笔遗产,此女子要求继承一部分。但她并没有充分的材料,证明她与这位参议员曾举行过合法的婚礼。参议员的儿子于是拒不承认有这样一位继母。双方对簿公堂,主审法官不是旁人,正是在此地巡回骑乘的菲尔德。此时,特里与他的女委托人日久生情,竟结为连理。菲尔德的判决对他们不利,特里夫妇在公堂之上,大打出手,被监禁数月。出狱后,旧恨新仇一起涌上心头,特里扬言要除掉菲尔德。鉴于此,1889年,当菲尔德要重返加州巡回骑乘时,总统和司法部部长决定为他提供贴身警卫,并授权其相机行事。最终,当特里夫妇尾随菲尔德准备动手之时,警卫先发制人,将特里射杀。[55]
晚年的菲尔德,身心俱疲,但他拒不退休,为的是超过约翰·马歇尔大法官创下的任职记录(34年零5个月)。1897年12月,当他从最高法院退休时,终于圆了这个梦(34年零6个月),他也因此成为19世纪美国任职时间最长的大法官。
(胡晓进)
* * *
[1].图片来源:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dudley_Field_II,最后访问日期:2018年5月2日。
[2].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, p.6.
[3].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, p.17.
[4].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, p.20.
[5].图片来源:http://collections.museumca.org/?q=collection-item\a68901,最后访问日期:2014年5月2日。
[6].Stephen J.Field, “Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, With Other Sketches”, Journal of Supreme Court History, Vol.29 (2004), No.1, p.12.
[7].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997, p.11.
[8].Stephen J.Field, “Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, With Other Sketches”, Journal of Supreme Court History, Vol.29 (2004), No.1, p.27.
[9].Stephen J.Field, “Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, With Other Sketches”, Journal of Supreme Court History, Vol.29 (2004), No.1, p.27.
[10].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997, pp.29-30.
[11].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, p.33.
[12].Stephen J.Field, “Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, With Other Sketches”, Journal of Supreme Court History, Vol.29 (2004), No.1, p.39.
[13].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997, p.32.
[14].Stephen J.Field, “Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, With Other Sketches”, Journal of Supreme Court History, Vol.29 (2004), No.1, p.42.
[15].数年后,特纳法官谋求连任,但选举结果有争议,上诉至加州最高法院时,菲尔德正任该院法官,由于个人恩怨,菲尔德回避了此案。Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969,pp.49-50.
[16].Stephen J.Field, “Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, With Other Sketches”, Journal of Supreme Court History, Vol.29 (2004), No.1, pp.55-56.
[17].Stephen J.Field, “Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, With Other Sketches”, Journal of Supreme Court History, Vol.29 (2004), No.1, pp.70-71.
[18].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, p.73.
[19].Stephen J.Field, “Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, With Other Sketches”, Journal of Supreme Court History, Vol.29 (2004), No.1, p.72.
[20].图片来源:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S._Terry,最后访问日期:2018年5月2日。
[21].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997, pp.83-84.
[22].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997,pp.88-89; Stephen J.Field, “Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, With Other Sketches”, Journal of Supreme Court History, Vol.29 (2004), No.1, p.84.
[23].里格,西班牙等国家曾经使用过的长度单位,1平方里格约等于18平方公里。
[24].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, pp.96-97; Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997,pp.102-103.
[25].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997, pp.104-105; Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, pp.100-101.
[26].Stephen J.Field, “Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, With Other Sketches”, Journal of Supreme Court History, Vol.29 (2004), No.1, p.77.
[27].如今的斯坦福大学就是斯坦福夫妇为了纪念早逝的儿子而捐资设立的。
[28].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997,p.96.
[29].Stephen J.Field, “Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, With Other Sketches”, Journal of Supreme Court History, Vol.29 (2004), No.1, pp.94-95.
[30].Cummings v.Missouri, 71 U.S.279-281 (1867).
[31].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997,p.114.
[32].Cummings v.Missouri, 71 U.S.316-331 (1867).
[33].图片来源:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Johnson_Field,最后访问日期:2018年5月2日。
[34].Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S.36, 110 (1873).
[35].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997, p.203.
[36].Chy Lung v.Freeman, 92 U.S.275 (1875).
[37].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997, pp.204-206; Circuit Court of the United States, District of California, Ho Ah Kow v.Matthew Nunan, The American Law Register (1852-1891), Vol.27, No.11, New Series Volume 18 (Nov.,1879), pp.677-683.
[38].Circuit Court of the United States, District of California, Ho Ah Kow v.Matthew Nunan, The American Law Register (1852-1891), Vol.27, No.11, New Series Volume 18 (Nov., 1879), pp.681-682.
[39].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997, p.204, p.326.
[40].Yick Wo v.Hopkins, 118 U.S.358-359 (1886).
[41].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law,Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, pp.224-226.
[42].任东来、陈伟、白雪峰等著:《美国宪政历程:影响美国的25个司法大案》,中国法制出版社2004年版,第141—145页。
[43].The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S.581 (1889).
[44].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, p.246.
[45].Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S.732-744 (1878); Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law,Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, pp.246-248.
[46].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, pp.250-252.
[47].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, p.253.
[48].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, p.257.
[49].Santa Clara County v.Southern Pacific R.Co., 118 U.S.396-397 (1886).
[50].Carl Brent Swisher, Stephen J.Field, Craftsman of the Law, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969, p.261.
[51].Christopher Tomlins, ed.,The United States Supreme Court: The Pursuit of Justice, N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, p.136.
[52].王希著:《原则与妥协:美国宪法的精神与实践》,北京大学出版社2000年版,第352页。
[53].Stone v.Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 116 U.S.343-347 (1886).
[54].Munn v.Illinois, 94 U.S.113-144 (1876).
[55].Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997, pp.275-283.总统授权警卫如此行为,是否存在宪法依据,也是随后一起著名案件(In re Neagle, 135 U.S.1, 1890)的争论焦点。Lee Epstein & Thomas G.Walker, Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Power & Constraints (Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 3rd ed., 1998), pp.183-185.