Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1853-11-26
THE LAW REFORM BILL.


sonal interest Of the practising attorney.
We will give some of the reasons which induce
us to think So
The system Of oral examination in open court
and the examination of parties and of persons in
terescd, will result in the discovery of the truth
and the consequent attainment of justice in almost
every case. The knowledge of the true state of
the facts in vast number of cases is confined ex-
clusvely to the parties and persons interested, and
can be obtained only by resortng to their evidence
and in regard to the oral examination OF witnesses
before the trying body, no Judge can be certain
that he is doing Justice in large class OF cases I'M
less he sees the witnesses and hears them give evil
dence. The superiority of testimony given in open
court is affirmed by BLACKSTONE and by almost
every writer on evidence. The provision that the
defendant in criminal cases shall have the privilege
of meeting his witnesses 'face TO face" is to be
found in the Constitution of the United States and
in the Constitution Of 1--WE believe every State in
the Union. This aiirms its superiority, because in
cases of life and liberty it is guaranteed by Constit
tional safeguards.
If however, 1t were not affirmed by single law
writer by single constitutional safeguard, it is
still fact which every man Of common sense and
observation knows to be true.
If the object Of courts of justice be to dispense
justice, they should be organized upon the princ-
pie of oral examination in open court far prac-
ticable and by q resort to the knowledge OF those
who in almost all cases do know most about the
controverted facts
1t win bring much larger portion of contro-
ba in tIa in which thew
arise, and where the parties reside This viii bring
Justice nearer home TO each mans door, according
to ALFRED's maxim of judicial expediency. The
personal expenses of parties will therefore be less.
1t will remove all questions as to the court the
suit is to be brought in and most of those to the
mode of proceeding, as there will be but one court
to sue in, and one mode OF proceeding, instead of
two The cost Of obtaining rights, and the loss from
this source, will be removed and acourt will not be
80 terrible an affair as tnow is.
twill reduce the cost of suits by reducing the
length of pleadings and the consequent costs of
transcripts &c. &c, from court to court
1t will reduce the cost of suits by trying the en-
tire matter in controversy, in one suit and in one
court, instead of making two or three suits out of
transactions which might better be settled in one;
instead of trying half the in one court, and half
the case in another or trying the same case in two
courts in order to settle legal rights in and eqnt-
able rights in the other
This great and crying evil of our system can new
err be removed but by the abolition Of all forms of
action, and of the distinction between legal and
equitable remedies.
1t will diminish cost by the examination Of par
ties and of persons interested, who in the very
nature of things know more about the matters
in controversy than others. 1t will thus get clear
in many cases of host of witnesses who can only
testify to isolated facts and detached CONVERSE
tons remote from the matter in issue
1t will diminish cost by cutting off debate about
jurisdiction, pleadings, amendments, and compe-
tency of witnesses, which now consume so much
OF the time of courts and ruin so many suitors by
the cost of attending witnesses. Uninformed men
abuse lawyers for their debates There is, howev-
er, inherent difficulty in the questions, and discus
sion is absolutely necessary. The remedy is to re-
move the necessity which creates discussion On col
lateral questions as far as possible, and conine dis
cussion to the merits of the controversies
1t will shorten much the duration of law suits
Lawsuits will consequently consume less of suitOrs
time which is spent about the court houses where,
having nothing to de, they contract habits of ga
ming, drinking, ideness and vice.
1t will diminish the cost of the judiciary system.
Juries will not be so long in attendance when most
of the debates about pleadngs evidence, jurisdic-
ton, &c, are removed, and fewer Judges can do
the business. The same Judicial force can try q
much larger number of cases in the same time for
in many cases the collateral questions consume more
time and require more learning and legal research
than the merits of the controversy.
Lastly. 1t will reduce the amount of labor
which students and practising lawyers have to I'M
dergo to learn and learn again and again two sys-
TENS of pleadngs practice, and proceedings: vast
volume of minute rules and regulations, made upon
no general principle; dry, tosome drudgery, which
results in the acquisition of no principle of morals
or Of enlightened jurisprudence, and which, there
fore, passes through the mind like the flight of
bird through the air leaving no trace behind. But /
what is worse for the lawyer, seeking through hon
orable toll and labor to secure for his family sup
port 1t is a toll which is not seen, not known and
not appreciated and is hardly ever paid for but with
the impression that downright extortion is prac-
tced When the defendants lawyer drives the
plaintiff out of court on collateral question, he
coniers no permanent benefit on his client He
keeps him longer in court and if the opposite par
ty has the right on his side he loads his own eli
ent with costs ultimately. On the other side when
the plaintiff lawyer loses upon collateral ques-
ton heis frequently cursed as an ignoramus, is
paid grud2ingly, and is threatened with costs The
books of reports show that ale lawyers every
where are constantly defeated on such questions.
and their clients subjected TO costs If they were
made to pay the costs in such cases it would drive
every lawyer out Of the courts and for the painest
Of all reasons, lawyers cannot declare what the
law is before there is any adjudcated to guide
them.
There is nothing which excites so much unjust
prejudice against the profession as this very sys-
EN-, and they owe it to themselves to remove it by 4
lbolishng it at the earliest practicable moment
When all the rubbish which now obstructs the
path of the student, the practising lawyer and the
Judge is removed, the science Of human rights will
Do found boundless field in which the labor of
quarter OF a century by the soutest frame and the