New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-05-01
Election Of Judges.

As the day OF the judicial election aPP'o'N"e',
the friends OF an Elective Judiciary have more ana
more reason to be alarmed at the general apathy
which prevails upon the subject. Nobody appears
10 be upon the aler, but the opponents OF the prin
cipls Of Popular Elections, who seem anxious TO
fulfil their predictions Of the entrs failure Of the eI
pertinent, by getting elected thsrH'eTe'
There are few good lawyers, who have siren.
uousy advocated the New Constitution and insisted
upon the capacity and the nsk Of the People TO
choose their own Judges Their opinions have been
ridealed BY their opponents particularly those VINO
were reapins rich harvest IRON the abuses OF the
old system bat the great popular masses came TO
the rescue and trump hantiy adopted the new
principle.
The Judges who had become perfected in the old
system, particularly the receipt OF fees and max
ing change while hearing the argument OF two or
three motions at once. now graclously tell as
Through their friends that they should be elected
20 avoid dangers OF a change and 10 shew how
well they can maintain and support Constitution
which from the beginning they have oppo'ed desysed
and rdteled Continue the present Judges say their
friends and that will prevent Party Election What
BAT Party PLACED hsrs in snee Whist claims have
they 20 be continued. unless their Judicial ability,
promp,nes. In the dispatch Of business and r regard
principle in the performances OF their duties have de-
monstrated their nsss for their places II any Judge
has distinguished himself for these qualities let US keep
him but those who have not certainly be dispensed
with
The whole system of Judicial Practice in this City
has for long time been essentially loose end corrupt
II any Judge has escaped the eonsgon. he deserves
great credit and should By all means be promoted The
corruption here mentioned not that Judges have been
bribed 10 give wrong decisions, or have intended TO
give wrong decisions the merits OF causes but that
most Of them have been guilty OF an entire direlicton
Of duty in continually putting on causes &c without
any reasonable or diligence on the part OF the
party aking the favor and the staying OF proceedings
after verdict in all cases whether there any
sonable ground not and indeed riiho tre1 asking
tAs question OF looking into TIA papers.
The Superior Court and Common Pleas have made
general rules requiring orders, entirely unnecessary
except for the purpose Of securing fees to say nothing
Of those they have charged and taken without law snd
without the OF such rules OF their own max
ing TO justify them. These charges are founded on
factshe people ought to know the truth OF the matte
and they shall know H. The Judges have had h>r
dsy(ss well As their Fees-,he People are now about
10 have theirs
A few unanswerabe and inconrovertibe facts will
fully sustain the above assertion.
The Superior Court having the power to hear mo-
lions at Chambers. with the same effect as In open
Court made general rule allowing such motions to be
brought upon motion of four days or an oTdr 10 shoe
cause motion nothing be paid the Judge
but for the order 10 show which only another
for motion from tlc Judge in lieu Of the Auor'
ney dollar charged by he Judge, and then another
dollar charged for another order for the Clerk 10
enter in the minutes the decision which would not
be chArgesble If the motion made in open Court
IL may be said the party not bound TO get the order
10 show cause but miSh use motion but this does
not justify rule allowing such an order which down
10 1870 increased the fees the Attorney also and IN
der il the mutual interest Of Attorney and Judge to re-
sort TO unnnsdy orders The order 10 show cause mas
been almost universally used in lieu Of the motion
though II made necessary for the Attorney TO 90 to
the Judge for H. and generally answered no other pur.
puse han the motion except to pay the Judge dollar
and the practice is continued since the law Of
1870 which cuts of the Attorneys claim to any extra
compensation for such service The reason for this Is
obvious enough 10 those acquainted with the subject
The all these motions including Attorneys fees
between party and party in the discretion OF the
Judge and lawyers who have given the Judges the
gOby by using motion in lieu OF an order nave soon
found that II their motions were not denied they were
granted without costs; on payment of costs or
abide the OF the suit They have there
fore learned pay the dollar and get the order without
q murmur
The statute provides that when the plaintiff Is
resident the defendant may require security for costs
and 10 that end may obtain an order that the paintn
file such security and that all proceedings be stayed
TIL ii be filed and the security In the bond Justify II ex
cepted to- by affidavit that they householders
worth double the amount Of the bond over and above
all demands The justification by shdavit Is not
required 10 be before Judge. nor approved OF by
him but 10 declared by law complete the moment the
affidavit 10 fled and copy served. Yet the superior
Court made rule that the securities should JUST
fy before a Judge at Chambers and for this they
have charged dollar for each surety. usually two
in each csse case and smother dollar tor an order
to stay Of proceedings rhih The staitse did
gratis BY srvex tords making usually three dollars In
each case. Tor doing what not required by lnr,
but by arisss rule OF Court There are more speci
mems of the rule-mAkne power.
The excessive charges of Fees arc innumerable-
Where the order other proceeding has been
CURED alike in several II has long been held that
the attorneys fees could be charged only In oDe-not
all and where fixed sum often dollars IL allowed
for OF a motion and the motion Ia made by the
attorney In several get OF papers 1t
has been held tina, but dollars could be taxed IN al The
sun, But this principle would not do for JHds. fees
and. accordingly where order Ia made 70 adjourn
motion taxation of cost In half dozen suits str dol
lars Is charged by the Judge for his single signature
or course sdjournments cansot be resisted An ator
ney went to get order to open defaults In Sc suits
TO let in defences the merits. He made single
affidavit entitled in all the and single order to
show il before the Judge, paid him $50
and got his MISUNDERSTANDING this rather good job for
Judge he said nothing about the shilling for taking the
sffdsvit-but the Judge not 30 indifferent There
IL slight mistake sir" said he tAtrtysr shiiHss for
ne a&dartts-snd 1t paid The attorney, however
could dolly charge ten dollars for his services done
through the motion in al the causes.
With your permission, Mr.. Editor, will conclude
this expose OF the Fee system in another article
IrHURIEL.