原文：
普通常有以“人治”和“法治”相对称,而且认为西洋是法治的社会,我们是“人治”的社会。其实这个对称的说法并不很清楚。法治的意思并不是说法律本身能统治,能维持社会秩序,而是说社会上人和人的关系是根据法律来维持的。法律还得靠权力来支持,还得靠人来执行,法治其实是“人依法而治”,并非没有人的因素。
现代论法理的学者中有些极重视人的因素。他们注意到在应用法律于实际情形时,必须经过法官对于法律条文的解释。法官的解释的对象虽则是法律条文,但是决定解释内容的却包含很多因素,法官个人的偏见,甚至是否有胃病,以及社会的舆论都是极重要的。于是他们认为法律不过是法官的判决。这自是片面的说法,因为法官并不能任意下判决的,他的判决至少也须被认为是根据法律的,但是这种看法也告诉我们所谓法治绝不能缺乏人的因素了。
这样说来,人治和法治有什么区别呢?如果人治是法治的对面,意思应当是“不依法律的统治”了。统治如果是指社会秩序的维持,我们很难想象一个社会的秩序可以不必靠什么力量就可以维持,人和人的关系可以不根据什么规定而自行配合的。如果不根据法律,根据什么呢?望文生义地说来,人治好像是指有权力的人任凭一己的好恶来规定社会上人和人的关系的意思。我很怀疑这种“人治”是可能发生的。如果共同生活的人们,相互的行为、权利和义务,没有一定规范可守,依着统治者好恶来决定,而好恶也无法预测的话,社会必然会混乱,人们会不知道怎样行动,那是不可能的,因之也说不上“治”了。
译文：
It is conventional to contrast "a rule of people" to "a rule of law" and to categorize Western societies as ruled by laws and our society as ruled by people. Actually, this contrast is not very accurate. A rule of law does not mean that the law itself rules and maintains social order but, rather, that human relationships in the society are sustained according to laws. Laws depend on political power for their support and on people for their execution. Therefore, rule by law actually means both that people use laws to rule and, of course, that human factors are involved.
Some modern legal theorists place great weight on the human factors that influence laws. They emphasize that, when a law is applied in a specific case, a judge must render an interpretation based on a legal statute. Although the object of the judge's interpretation may be that legal text, what is included in a specific judgment results from many factors. The judge's biases, whether he has a stomachache or not, the state of public opinion—all these and other factors may be very important. Therefore, these legal theorists think that the law is nothing but a judge's judgment. This itself is a one-sided view. Judges cannot render a decision just as they please. At a minimum, the decision must be seen to be based in law. Nonetheless, this view should remind us that human factors are always involved in a rule of law.
What, then, is the distinction between a rule of people and a rule of law? If ruling by people is the opposite of ruling by laws, does that mean that people do not use laws to rule? If ruling means the maintenance of social order, one can hardly imagine a social order that could be maintained without any force whatsoever. It is equally difficult to imagine that human interaction could be coordinated automatically without any rules or norms. If a society is not run according to laws, how is it run? If we take the words literally, a rule of people would seem to mean that powerful people can, at their whim, establish the social rules for human relationships. I doubt very much that this kind of "rule by the people" could ever happen. If people who live together had no norms to guide their interaction and no regulations to fix their rights and responsibilities, and if they did everything only according to the ruler's unpredictable whims, the society would be in absolute chaos. People would not know how to act. That situation could not happen, and, in any event, it could not be called a system of rule, by whatever name.