Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-01-10
y,xr--x, p,yta.c.s;,

there was 10 be District Court, In each l'is'rict,
n ,lden by District Judge. The Districts were d.
yde,i into three Circuits, the Eastern, the Middle,
and the Sou,hern, and there was TO be Circuit
Cont in each District, to be composed oil two OF
the Justices Of the Supreme Court, and the Dis
trio, Judge for the District; this Circuit Court
was TO hold two sessions year, in each District,
and | need not inform the Comni&e e that the great
mass OF business, excepting only that OF Admiralty
and Maritime jurisdiction, belonged to the Circuit
Court as Cour, of original jurisdiction. 1t enter
tanned appeals, wrs Of error, also, from the de-
cisions Of the District Courts, in all cases.
BY this arrangement then, the Justices of tie Su-
preIne Court were required to hold two sessions o'
that Court, annually, at the Seat OF government 10
hear appeals and wriis OF error; and 1t was reqr-
cd of them, also. that two OF them should ni'ehu IN
each District twice year, TO hold, win 'he LIS
tict Judge, a Circuit Court.
IL was found that these duties were so ourthen-
some that they could notb- performed In Novem-
Der, 1892, the Judges addressed the PRESIDENT on
the subject, (who laid their communication before
Congress- setting forth their inability to perform,
without exertons aud sacrifices too great to be
expected from any men, the services imposed Oh
them by law. Ii was, doubtless, this comraunica-
lion which produced the law OF March, 1913, by
which it was provided that one Judge OF the Su-
pGeme Court, with the District Judge, should con-
siitute the Circui, Court And. inasInuch as the
Courts would now consist of two Judges, provo
announcement, for the OF difference OF opinion
1t will be observed, MIR. Chairman, that, by these
laws, thus far, particular Justices not assigned
10 particular Circuits. Any two Judges OF the
Supreme Court under the frs, law, and any one,
under that of 1893, with the District Judge, con-
sttuted a Circuit Court. change, or alienation,
of the Judges, was contemplated by the Jaw
Therefore, it was provided by the act OF 1898,
that, in of division OF opinion, as the Court
consisted OF but two Judges, the question should
be continued to the next session, and 1t different
Judge then appeared, and his opinion coinc!ded
with tina, of has predecessor, judgment should go
cordngly.
And here. Mr. Chairman, wish TO observe
that in my opinion, the original plan OF holding
the Circuit Courts by different judges from time to
time, ill Judged; it was founded on false
analogy: il seems 10 have been borrowed from the
English Courts of Assize and -NfSt Pylts; bur the
difference in the powers and jurisdiction OF the
Judges in the two cases, rendered What was proper
for one not a fit model for the other. The English
Judges at .NiSi Prits, 50 lar as civil causes are
concerned, have nothing 10 do but try questions OF
iact by the aid of a jury, on issues or pleadngs
already settled in he Court from which the record
proceeds They give final Judgments; nor do
they make introductory orders respecting the pro-
ceeding and progress OF the cause They take
verdict of the jury the issues already Joined be-
tween The parties, ard give no other directions IN
matters OF law, than such as become necessary in
the OF this trial b. jGry. Every case begun,
therefore, is ordinarily finished Nothing OF thai
case remains for the Judges successor IL 1t be
,red, the record Is taken back with the verdict TO
Westminster Hall, il 1t be not tried, the whole
case remains for subsequent occasion. Il Is, per-
haps surprizing, that the very able men who IRAN
ed the first judicial did not the great differ
ence between this manner of proceeding at the
English ASHES, and the necessary course oil pro-
ceedng in our Circuit Courts, with the powers and
Jurisdictions conferred those courts These are
of final Jurisdictions: they not only take vef
diets, but give judgments. Here suits are brouGht
proceeded with throu h ali their stages, tried and
finally deterl..... AJAX. 4. The progress OF SUITS
especially those OF equity Jurisdiction, 1t necessari
ly happens thalthere didereGi stages, and sue
cessive rybecome necessary iro' term 20 term,
il happeDei,s of course, that the Judge was often
changed before the cause decided: he who heard
the end had not heard the beginning. And when to
this is added, that these Judges bred in differ
ent schools and, matters OF practice esPecIsl
ly accustomed TO different usages, il will be easy
to perceive that no small difficulties TO be
encountered in the ordinary despatch OF business.
So, iu cases reserved for advisement and further
consideration, The Judge reserving the question,
not the Judge to decideit. He WHO heard the
argument was MOI to make the decision. Without
pursuing this part cf the case farther it is quite
obvious that such system could not answer the
ends OF justice.
The courts, indeed, were callel Circuit Courts;
which seemed to imply tinerani character. but,
in truth they resembed much more, in their pow er
and jurisdiction, the English sitting in bench
than the asszes, to which they appear have been
likened.
The act of 1893, by requiring the attendance of
only one, instead OF Two, of the Judges of the Su-
preme Court, the circuits, OF course diminished
by one half the circuit labors of those judges.
We then cometo the law of Feb. 1901. b.
this act the Judges of the Supreme Court were re-
Iiev ed from all circuit duties Provision was made
that their number should be reduced, on the first
vacancy from six to five. They were Still 10 holu
two sessions annually, OF the Supreme Court; and
Circuit judges appointed 10 hold the Circuit
Court in each District TIE pro visions Of this law
are generally known, and it is not necessary 10
recte thea particularly. 1t is enou9ho say, that
in FIVE Of the six Circuits the Circuit Court was to
consist oil three Judges, specially appointed to con-
sttuie such Court; and In the skin, of one Judge
specially appOn ed, and the District Judge OF the
District.
We al know. air, that this law lasted but a
swelye-.aonlh. 1t wasrepealej in toto by the act
of March 8, 1909, and a new Organization of the
Circuit Courts provided for by the act of the
29h of April of that year. 1t must be admitted,
think, sir thar this act made considerable improve
ments upon the system. it existed before the act
OF February, 1901. /, took away the itinerary
character OF lie Circuit Courts, by assigning parii-
cilar Justices 10 particular Circuits This, Ia my
opinion, was great Improvement Ii conlorued
the constitution OF the Court 10 the nature of the
powers which il exercised. The same judges now
heard the through all the stages OF ITS pro-
gress, and the Court became what its dues proper
ly made it, Court Of Record, with permanent
Judges, exercising various jurisdiction, trying
at lie bar 10y Jury, in cases proper for the
f,te cfa nd IL II