The Complete Aristotle (eng.)

public, the third private: the first was set
apart to maintain the customary worship of the Gods, the second was
to support the warriors, the third was the property of the
husbandmen. He also divided laws into three classes, and no more,
for he maintained that there are three subjects of lawsuits—insult,
injury, and homicide. He likewise instituted a single final court
of appeal, to which all causes seeming to have been improperly
decided might be referred; this court he formed of elders chosen
for the purpose. He was further of opinion that the decisions of
the courts ought not to be given by the use of a voting pebble, but
that every one should have a tablet on which he might not only
write a simple condemnation, or leave the tablet blank for a simple
acquittal; but, if he partly acquitted and partly condemned, he was
to distinguish accordingly. To the existing law he objected that it
obliged the judges to be guilty of perjury, whichever way they
voted. He also enacted that those who discovered anything for the
good of the state should be honored; and he provided that the
children of citizens who died in battle should be maintained at the
public expense, as if such an enactment had never been heard of
before, yet it actually exists at Athens and in other places. As to
the magistrates, he would have them all elected by the people, that
is, by the three classes already mentioned, and those who were
elected were to watch over the interests of the public, of
strangers, and of orphans. These are the most striking points in
the constitution of Hippodamus. There is not much else.
    The first of these proposals to which objection may be taken is
the threefold division of the citizens. The artisans, and the
husbandmen, and the warriors, all have a share in the government.
But the husbandmen have no arms, and the artisans neither arms nor
land, and therefore they become all but slaves of the warrior
class. That they should share in all the offices is an
impossibility; for generals and guardians of the citizens, and
nearly all the principal magistrates, must be taken from the class
of those who carry arms. Yet, if the two other classes have no
share in the government, how can they be loyal citizens? It may be
said that those who have arms must necessarily be masters of both
the other classes, but this is not so easily accomplished unless
they are numerous; and if they are, why should the other classes
share in the government at all, or have power to appoint
magistrates? Further, what use are farmers to the city? Artisans
there must be, for these are wanted in every city, and they can
live by their craft, as elsewhere; and the husbandmen too, if they
really provided the warriors with food, might fairly have a share
in the government. But in the republic of Hippodamus they are
supposed to have land of their own, which they cultivate for their
private benefit. Again, as to this common land out of which the
soldiers are maintained, if they are themselves to be the
cultivators of it, the warrior class will be identical with the
husbandmen, although the legislator intended to make a distinction
between them. If, again, there are to be other cultivators distinct
both from the husbandmen, who have land of their own, and from the
warriors, they will make a fourth class, which has no place in the
state and no share in anything. Or, if the same persons are to
cultivate their own lands, and those of the public as well, they
will have difficulty in supplying the quantity of produce which
will maintain two households: and why, in this case, should there
be any division, for they might find food themselves and give to
the warriors from the same land and the same lots? There is surely
a great confusion in all this.
    Neither is the law to commended which says that the judges, when
a simple issue is laid before them, should distinguish in their
judgement; for the judge is thus converted into an arbitrator. Now,
in an arbitration, although the arbitrators are many, they confer
with one another about the decision, and therefore they can
distinguish; but in courts of law this is impossible, and, indeed,
most legislators take pains to prevent the judges from holding any
communication with one another. Again, will there not be confusion
if the judge thinks that damages should be given, but not so much
as the suitor demands? He asks, say, for twenty minae, and the
judge allows him ten minae (or in general the suitor asks for more
and the judge