The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-01-04
DEcsMBER 26, 1854.
JUDICIARY REFORM.

The recent action of the House of Representatives in
this is acceptable to the people of the Dis
trict 1t them from slumber of half century
and comedies though tardly what their interest demand
ed they should long ago have had There be doubt
the sentiments Of the people, and fair expression Of
the public voice would forever put at rest the wild
ton Of of the opponents of the measure that
ory of the citizens of the District opposed to it,
Such idea only be- if all sustained by resort to
petitions where names when real often the reward
Of importantly, may say imposition.
But to pass TO the merits Of the bill Without going
into detail, few suggestions will show, conceive that
change necessary and change not only of the lars
but Of the judicial system under which they admins
tered 1t is anomaly in any system TO deprive liti
gants except in very unimportant of appellate
court in which may be reviewed the committed in
the of hasty trial, and which will often occur
in spite of the utmost vigilance and ability the part of
the bench STILL that is condition here, for may
with truth say have right of appeal True it is the
of Congress provides for wrs Of appeals from
the decisions of the present circuit court TO the Supreme
Court of the United States But under what circum-
stances? Only when the matter in dispute amounts TO
900 for the further provision authorizing of the
judges of the Supreme Court grant appeals in be-
low that amount when questions of law Of extensive in
tercst and operation involved has practical OPP
Grafton Every will that this amounts to almost
an exclusion We are not commercial or manu-
featuring people The business transactions of the place,
and consequence. the liabilities arising out of
them comparatively small that but few very few Of
the reach that pecunary amount which entities
to an appeal For the balance OF the business and
nearly the whole there is TO higher tribunal
To have a system thus organized where deci-
ded however hastily finally decided lose sight Of
wel-recognsed distinction between inferior courts Of the
nature of s rs courts where questions have to be de-
cided Immediately and amidst all the hurry and confusion
incident trial and those of higher character in the
nature of appellate courts where record is
gued deliberately considered deliberately and determined
deliberately When litigans have such recourse you
have but half provided for fair and f administration Of
Justice and when that exclusion il carried far with
it amounts to positive denial Of the The sys-
tenn of the common law nowhere countenanees such
omission and the act Of Congress Of February a.
1901 first organizing present system, contem-
plated leaving in such helpless condition 1t IL sig
that the 9Th section of that law gave ws Of
error appeals in exceeding $780, thus making
the system somewhat complete and symmetrical There
undoubtedly good reason far the convenience Of
the Supreme Court concerned for afterwards altering
that limit from Sioo $1,000 done hy the act Of
1916 but whatever for leaving without sub
stute for the appellate court the doors Of which
thus closed against We have since been ahorng
system vitality defective and which the
of Congress only has left for long time When APP
pcals given in magistrates Of the value Of S.
what proprety there denying that corrective in
controversies Of Importance, ranging (say) in
value from 500 to $1,000 This bin, by abolish
ing the present courts where most Of the judges
preside together, leaving material out Of which
70 construct court OF appeals and institntng three