THE TRIBUNAL OF THE KING.
The other tribunal was called that of the king; it also had a throne, which was lower than that of the Tribunal of God, and a canopy adorned with the royal coat of arms. Here the kings transacted ordinary business and gave public audience; but when they rendered decisions upon grave and important cases, or pronounced sentence of death, they removed to the Tribunal of God, placing the right hand upon the skull, and holding in the left the golden arrow which served as a sceptre, and on these occasions they put on the tiara (tiara) which they used, which resembled a half mitre. There were on the same stool three of these tiaras; one was of precious stones set in gold, another of feathers, and the third woven of cotton and rabbit-hair, of a blue color. This tribunal was composed of fourteen grandees of the kingdom, who sat in three divisions of the hall, according to their rank and seniority. In the first division was the king; in the second division were seated six grandees; the first of these six, on the right hand, was the lord of Teotihuacan, the second the lord of Acolman, the third the lord of Tepetlaoztoc; on the left side sat, first, the lord of Huexotla, second, the lord of Coatlichan, third, he of Chimalhuacan. In the third division of the hall, which was the exterior one, sat eight other lords, according to their rank and seniority; on the right side the first was the lord of Otompan, the second was the lord of Tollantzinco, the third the lord of Quauhchinanco, the fourth the lord of Xicotepec, and on the left side were, first, the lord of Tepechpan, second, the lord of Chiauhtla, third, the lord of Chiuhnauhtla, and fourth, he of Teiotocan.
There followed, also, another hall, which adjoined this on the eastern side, and was divided into two parts; in the inner and principal division, were eight judges, who were nobles and gentlemen, and four others who were of the citizen class;[501] these were followed by fifteen provincial judges, natives of all the cities and chief towns of Tezcuco; the latter took cognizance of all suits, civil or criminal, which were embraced in the eighty laws that Nezahualcoyotl established; the duration of the most important of these cases was never more than eighty days. In the other, or exterior, division of the hall, was a tribunal composed of four supreme judges, who were presidents of the councils; and there was a wicket, through which they entered and went out to communicate with the king.[502]
COURT PROCEEDINGS.
Besides these various tribunals for the general administration of justice, there were others that had jurisdiction in cases of a peculiar nature only. There was a court of divorce, and another which dealt only with military matters; by it military men were tried and punished, and it had also the power to confer rewards and honors upon the deserving; the especial jurisdiction of another tribunal extended over matters pertaining to art and science, while a fourth court had charge of the royal exchequer, of taxes and tributes, and of those employed in collecting them. Of some of these institutions I have already had occasion to speak. The mode of procedure, or daily routine, in the law courts of Mexico and Tezcuco was strict and formal. At sunrise, or as some say, at daybreak, the judges took their places in court, squatting upon mats spread for the purpose, usually upon an elevated platform. Here they administered justice until noon, when they partook of a meal supplied from the royal kitchen. When this was over and they had rested for a short space, business was resumed, and carried on during the greater part of the afternoon. Punctuality on the part of the judges was strictly enforced, and he who absented himself from court without good cause, such as illness, or royal permission, was severely punished. This order was observed every day, except when the presence of the judges was required at the public sacrifices or solemn festivities, at which time the courts of justice remained closed.[503]
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
Minor cases were conducted verbally, the parties producing their witnesses, who testified under oath for the complaint or the defence. The testimony, under oath, of the principals was also admitted as evidence; and one writer even asserts that the defendant could clear himself by his oath;[504] but it is plain that if such were the case conviction would be very rare. In cases of greater importance, especially in civil suits where the possession of real estate was involved, paintings, in which the property in dispute was represented, were produced as authentic documents, and the whole of the proceedings, such as the object of the claim, the evidence, the names of the parties and their respective witnesses, as well as the decision or sentence, were recorded in court by notaries, or clerks, appointed for that purpose.[505] A witness in an Aztec court of law occupied a serious position. In the first place the judges are by all writers said to have been particularly skillful in cross-examination. They seem to have made it an especial study to harass witnesses with pertinent questions and minute details; in the next place the punishment for perjury was death, and perjury among these people consisted in making a false statement when under oath, without the possibility of being saved by a legal quibble; in addition to this, superstition attached great weight to the oath which every witness was obliged to take, and which consisted in touching the forefinger to the earth and then to the tongue, as if to say, as Las Casas expresses it: By the goddess Earth, who supports and affords me sustenance, I swear to speak truth. This oath was considered to be very sacred and binding, and is said to have been rarely violated. Whether counsel or advocates were employed is a disputed point, some writers asserting distinctly that they were, and others that they were not.[506] Veytia states that the complainant and defendant were sometimes confronted with each other, and compelled to argue the case before the court, no other person being allowed to speak the while. The judges heard and passed sentence by a majority of votes,[507] each giving his decision aloud. If the trial took place in an inferior court, a disagreement sent the matter on appeal to a higher court; if it took place in the first instance before a superior tribunal, it was appealed to the great council of the emperor. The same writer also says that where a serious public offense had been committed, the witnesses were examined, and sentence was immediately passed without giving the accused time to defend himself.[508] We have already seen that the duration of suits was limited to eighty days, and generally they terminated much sooner than this, all possible expedition being always used. The better to avoid bribery and corruption, it was expressly forbidden for a judge to receive presents, no matter how trifling, and he who violated this rule was deposed from office, and otherwise punished with exceeding rigor.
The way in which the judges were paid for their services was peculiar. A certain portion of land was set apart for their exclusive benefit, which was cultivated and harvested by tenants, who doubtless were allowed to retain a part of the produce in return for their labor. These lands were not inherited by the son on the death of the father, but passed to the judge appointed in the place of the latter.[509] Veytia does not mention these lands; he says that the judges had no fixed salary, but were paid according to the king's pleasure, more or less, in proportion to the size of their families, besides which the king made valuable presents when the Eighty-Day Council met, to those who had performed their duty to his satisfaction.[510] The allowance was in all cases made amply sufficient, that there might be no excuse on the ground of poverty for a judge receiving presents or bribes. They held their office for life, and were selected from the higher classes, especially the superior judges, who were generally relatives of the king, or even members of the royal family. None were eligible for the office who were not sober, upright men, brought up in the temples, and who were well acquainted with court life and manners. A judge who became drunk, or received a bribe, was three times severely reprimanded by his fellow-judges; if the offense was repeated, his head was shaved publicly, a great disgrace among the Aztecs, and he was deprived of his office with ignominy. A judge making a false report to the king, or convicted of receiving a large bribe, or of rendering a manifestly unjust decision, was punished with death.[511] All this machinery of the law was dispensed with in Tlascala, where all disputes and difficulties were promptly settled by certain old men appointed for that purpose.[512]
ANECDOTES OF NEZAHUALPILLI.
A love of impartial justice seems to have characterized all the Aztec monarchs, and, as we have seen, the laws they enacted to ensure this to their subjects were severe in the extreme. No favoritism was allowed; all, from the highest to the lowest were held amenable to the law. A story, illustrating this, is repeated by nearly all the old writers. In the reign of Nezahualpilli, the son of Nezahualcoyotl, who were accounted the two wisest kings of Tezcuco, a suit sprang up between a rich and powerful noble and a poor man of the people. The judge decided against the poor man, who thereby lost what little he had, and was in danger of having to sell himself as a slave to procure subsistence for his family. But suspicion of foul play having been aroused, the king ordered the matter to be thoroughly investigated, when it transpired that the judge had been guilty of collusion with the rich man; so the king commanded that the unjust judge should be hanged at once, and that the poor man's property should be restored to him.