judiciary represents one of the earliest of political creations. In it, we find a parallel to the division of power between the ruler and a separate council of experienced men, an arrangement that represents a legacy from the period of tribal organization, but that only now becomes firmly established. The individual judge and the college of judges both occur so early that it is scarcely possible to say whether either antedated the other. Affecting the development just described are two other conditions, capable of bringing about a division of judicial authority at an early time. One of these conditions is the connection of the state with deity cult, as a result of which the secular power is limited by the authority of the priesthood, whose chief prerogative comes to be penal justice. The second factor in the differentiation of judicial functions consists in the institution of chieftainship, one of the two characteristic features of political society. Chieftainship involves a tendency towards a delegation of the supreme judicial authority to the ruler. This is particularly the case during the first stages of political organization, which still reflect the fact that the external political power of the chieftain grew up out of the conditions attendant upon war. Even though the secular judiciary, which originated in the council of elders, or, in certain cases, the judicial office of the priest, also continues to be maintained, the ruler nevertheless reserves for himself the authority over the most important issues. Particularly in doubtful cases, in which the ordinary judge has no traditional norms to guide his decision, the 'king's court' intervenes in order, if necessary, to secure a recognition of the claim of reasonableness. This is especially apt to occur in connection with capital crimes. Hence it is that, even after penal law has once become a matter of general governmental control--which, as a rule, occurs only at a later stage of legal development--the final decision in criminal cases usually rests with the ruler. Generally, moreover, it is the ruler alone who has sufficient power to put an end to the blood-revenge demanded by kinship groups. Owing to the fact that, in his capacity of military leader, the ruler possesses power over life and death during war with hostile tribes, he comes to exercise the same authority in connection also with the feuds of his fellow-tribesmen. Modern States have retained a last remnant of this power in the monarch's right to pardon, an erratic phenomenon of a culture that has long since disappeared.