Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-12-24
ALABANTA LEdTsLATURE.
IN sENATE.-FRDAr, DEC. 9, 1881.
DEBATE ON THE SUPREME COURT BILL.

DEBATE ON THE SUPREME COURT BILL. CONTINUED.
 MT BRIDGES said: Mr PTeSidsRt-I would have been willing to have taken the vote this morning, upSn the bill under consideration, without fur thd discussion the gentlemen who are opposing | themeasure had the last argument on Saturday. Bunoi contencd with the closing argument then, 1t has)been resumed by them to-day; and hence the reaPn why 1 shall claim the indulgence of the Se- natefor very short time while shall attempt iutaion of some of the arguments which have been so stenuously advanced in opposition to the bill pro- vldg for the establishment of a separate Supreme Coun
 It las been conceded, both by the opponents and frlents of the bill, that our present Supreme Court docka has become flooded with business, that it is now of most onerous character; if so, it matters not, whether the delay attendant upon the admins- tration of justice be in consequence of defect in the system or not, it becomes our duty, nay Sir so- lemn obligation is imposed upon the represen- atives of the people, to apply the proper remedy.
 If the people are delayed in the immediate recove- y of their rights, we are bound by the mandate Of the constitution, to aid them without fail or delay. | The gentleman from Lawrence, has suggested d remedy which exists only in his imaginaton; his plan Is not before the Senate, and not called upon to discuss its particular merits. He has told 1 us, however, that thc circuits should all commence on the same day; but how. or in what way, this would diminish the number of cases now brought before the Courts. he has not informed It Is necessary should stop to discuss this remedy.
 It has been contended by both the gentlemen Messrs Jackson and Coopwood) who have oppos- ed the bill, that the creation of separate Supreme Cout would only advance the interests of lawyers. II the lawyers were the only persons to be benefited by the adoption of the measure, there would be no business for them, Should the circuits commence on Inc same day, il would operate most prejudicay to tle interests of the suitors Many persons have bus ness to transact in different cicus, and they have their tavorite lawyers employed, who, by the present arrangement, practice in different circuits; whereas, if all the circuits were tQcommence al the same time, the parties would be Ms forced to aban- don their counsel, and employ others in whom they might not repose such unlimited confidence.
 What IS our present systeml It consists of seven Judges. In deciding any question submitted to them, ,he majority governs, of course four of them may settle the law; perhaps at anothor court some of the Judges may be absent and the same question may be settled in precisely the opposite way.
 All classes of the community are deeply intrused Tn the correct and faithful administration of the law Shouda Supreme Court be established as propos- ed, the Judges would decide all questions which might arise under our statutes And when the divi- sion would be thus made it would remain so, and not be sub ect to any change, inasmuch as the same Judges would remain on the bench, and would have to decide upon all similar and parallel cases which would be brought before them.
 The gentleman from Greene has said the Judges have not sufficient time to settle the law; that they have not time for reading and reflection; that they are unable 10 bestow upon the cases that attention which is necessary An attempt has been made to answer this argument but not successfully done. Had the Judges time for deliberations their de- clson would be correct, the law would be properly settled and hence the pure and uncorrupt streams of justice, would extend through every ramiGcation, from the most exalted to the most humble judicial tribunal.
 Tine gentleman from Lawrence says, thutlegal bu- siness Is rapidly diminishing. know not what may be the state of business in that section of the State where he may reside, but my experience Is wholly different. It would, indeed be most happy state of things, 1.-the declarations of the gentleman were true as to the whole State.
 But the principal objection which has been urged against the bill to be the expense incident to the creation of a separate Supreme Court. This expense has been varIously estimated at from S10000 down to $2750 am well satisfied, that all these estimates are erroneous and that the real cost will not exceed SSl750. That this may be made appa- rent to the Senate should the bill be adopted one of tbe present circuits might, with propriety, be dispensed with; which would save the salary of one Judge, $l75O. Consequently. cue of the Solicitors could be dispensed with who receives a salary of $35O. These two items make $S2000 Then, as the bors othe Circuit Judges wou. d be diminished one half their salaries ought to, and would be reduc ed suy $250; there being, after one of the circuits shoudbe abolished, six Judges; this would make reductan of $500; which added to $20O0, makes the total reduction 350O; deduct this ilom the az grcgate amount of the salaries which 1t is proposed should lie paid to the Judges the separate Supreme Court, So25O, and the amount Is reduced to $175O Shall we hesitate then, to adopt system which Is | 50 advantageous, which would produce such saluta- ry results, which would enable our felow-citizens to obtain her rights without denial delay, for the | n.rG Itk.. be from complaining, they would, am confident rejoice in the result.
 Another argument which has been most eloquent ly urged upon the consideration of the Senate, by the Hon. President and the gentleman from Law renee is that we should, by the passage of this b encounter most fearful responsibility. This is an argument which have never before heard advanc ed here. Sir, what important law has ever been passed by the Legislature of Alabama, which was demanded by petition eminating from the people Sir, boldly challenge the gentleman 10 ransack the archives of our Legislature for any such petitions Did they ever petition the Legislature to pass an appro priuon bill for the support of the government of the State2 No, Sir. Did they ever require of the Le- sislature to establish our present State Bank? Mo- Sir Did they ever petition the Legislature to adopt our present judicial systeml No, Sir Did they ever demand by petltlon that we should establish in- fan University, which bids fair, to become at an early day, of tho distinguished literary in sututions in our country. The abode of the muses the nursery of science, and of the of freemen wlo, at day notvery distant, will be called upon to ill those places whichwe occupy. 1 say, did the people ever petition for this Mo- Sir; and yet are told that we must not, and ought not to adopt this important measure, because tables are not grooming with the weight of petitions, requiring of us the creation of tins Court Sir, this argument then, hs to the ground. We have been sent here by the people, upon the supposiiion that are fla | ilialI xpith Ely ne proper remedy. The proprie,y of organ izlnga separate Supreme Court in this State. was first discussed in the House of Representatives of l the Legislature of Alabama. in 1895; il WAS then