Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-12-17


 days; but 1t will be remembered, that at that time articles of impeachment had been preferred against three Of the Judges and the remaining Judges were unwilling to incur the responsibility of continuing the Court. in which they acted very properly, other wise minority of the whole Court would have po- verned the decisions, which would have been in di- rect violation of the law constituting the Court There were continued then to July Term
 1929, 216 Brought up to this Term, 115
 33l Disposed ofat this Term, after session
 of 27 days, 100 Remaining on the docket, 23l This was performing extraordinary labor, at time when the weather was warm, and when the energies of both body and mind must necessarily have been partially prosraed; and the Court having convened too immediately after the close of the Cir cults.
 Coatinued to July Term, 1880, 23l Brought up to this term J
 328 Disposed ofaner session of34 days, 117 Continued to July term, 1880, 211 Brought up to this term, 125
 336 Disposed of after session of24 days, s6 Continued to January term, 1881, 25O Brought up to this erm 72 Disposed of after q session of 30 days so Continued to July term, 1881, 242 Brought up to this term, S Disposed of after session of l9 days, 59 Continued to January term, 1899. o6a Suppose there should be brought up to this
 term, on
 37S So that there will be upon the docket of the Su preme Court at it's next session, three hundred and seventy-eght causes Such vast number of canses could Lot by any possibility be disposed of in four months. Here, then, the Senate are in possession of the evidence ofthe immense accumulation of bu slness. And can it he said that the Judges arc nos industrious and attentive? Iapprehend not Yet, notwithstanding, all the attention which they have bestowed, they have been unable 10 make any pro- gress. And, sir, some of the causes now upon the docket have been there for three and half years our sys1en hen, operates stop-law as efiectu- al as though an act oihe Legislature had been pass ed. What greater favor could any man ask what greater indulgence could he required, than to get cause upon the Supreme Court docket? He could asksfor no nerpostion favorable to his wishes Is not the Legislature bound by the strongest consi- deratlons to remedy this defect in our system? Jus- tee demands expedition; and delay amounts to de- nai ofJustlce. By rule ofthe Court, no ease is taken up for argument until it has been regularly called m its place. By such delay. man who is entitled to Judgment may be ruined His only hopes of comfort and independence may be blasted Such delay Is an evll of the very first magnitude After ns exposition of facts, ask ofthe gentleman from iauderdale what system can remedy this delay in the administration of justice, so effectuaIly as that proposed by the bill? I shall be answered. that we shall have remedy in 1888; that we shall then have the power to dsplace the present Judges, and promote others to the bench who will be more eff cent But why was not this done in 1896? There was then an immense mass of business which has been gradually increasing from that time to the pre- sent The fault IS not in the Judges. but is to be at trbuted to the system When a judgment has been recovered against defendant le will if the amount De considerable, so manage, for some pretext other, 10 bring it before the Supreme Court in which, II he succeeds he can laugh to scorn his adver- sary. Call you this justice No, sir It is the ve- ry essence of inj ustlce. Having demonstrated the necessity which exists, and which so loudly de- mands from us ihe organization of separate Su. preme Court, will now, by adding additional force to the arguments which have advanced, refer to the judicial systems of other States in the Union, which are remarkable for their excellence and dis tingnished for the ability of their Judges I have asceralned upon examinations that seventeen of the twenty-lour States have separate Supreme Courts; not then admonished by the experience of other States, that we should act wisely by pursuing andimltatng their example? will speak more parti- cularly ofsome of them. The State of N York has separate Supreme Court consisting of three Judges who have salary of $2000 each and besides they have in New-York d yet higher Court d Court for the correction of errors, composed of the Senate of fthe State, the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Chancellor This Court resembles somewhat the House of Lords, in England when sitting in it's judicial capacity. In New-York the common Law Courts and the Court of Chancery are also separate and distinct. There, if a suitor be dissatisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court, he may carry his case to the Court of Errors.
 In Virginia, they have separate Supreme Court composed of five Judges with an annual salary of $2500 each and besides this, they have Court whlchthey denonlnate General Court.
 In North Carolina, they have separate Supreme Court composed of three Judges. with an annual salary of $250O each. In this State, (N @ they formerly had inc same sysrsm which we now have There the same complaints were made as to the de- lay of justice which are mHte here; and since the adoption oi their present system he people are not only well pleased. but perfectly satisfied. The sys- tenn proposed by the bill now under consideration, is precisely similar to that of North Carolina.
 In South Carolina, they have a separate Supreme Court, composed of three Judges, with an annual salary of $35O0 each There, the common Law and Chancery Courts are separate and distinct, and not blended as whus
 In Louisiana, they have also Il separate Supreme Court, Inc Cbler Justice of which alone receives an annual salary of $5000, more than by the bill be- fore us we propose paying to the three Judges uni. tedly.
 In the State of Georgia, they have no separate Supreme Court; and we are informed their judicial proceedings are in most deplorabe condition. In one half oi the Circuits the Judges decide way, in the other Circuits the Judges decide perhaps the same principles directly the reverse. There the Circuit decisions are continually fuciuating; there IS no uniformity. No man knows when he is se- cure Tn his rights. The principles which govern one Judge, may not influence bis successor. The con sequence IS, that the people are dissatisfed; and the want ofa Supreme Court operates most pre-