Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-01-02

to get subscribers on any ROUTE he may travel
The Judiciary Bill.
| We have to-day, for the first time, examined
the Judiciary bill, framed by the Hon. Henry
May Of Maryland, abolishing the courts Of this
District, and introducing q new system alto
gether. That there is ample room for reform
in tho present system, and that something
should be at once done to remedy its evils, is
q matter about which, it seems to us, no two
sane persons could differ Although our time,
since our residence in this District. (some five
years. has been mostly devoted to business
outside the courts, we have had ample oppor-
tunities in court to discover the defects Of the
existing system. We are decidedly for reform,
but we long since learned, that "epery change
Is not REFORM" There is no branch of our
government which should be handled with so
much care and caution as the Judiciary.
1t is truly and emphatically the palladium
Of our rights There is nothing in our insti-
tutions Of 50 much value, as an independent,
intelligent, and honest Judiciary. Legislatures
may in their folly, or in their wild and thought
less selfconfde1ce, tinker thelaws Executive
officers, who are clothed in little brief au-
thority, may bestow fayors upon their friends,
or hesitate to do justice to their political oppo
nents. These evils are transient and remedi-
able, but if we have Judiciary that is igno-
rant, dependent, or corrupt, the liberties Of the
citizen are not worth the name.
We are led to these reflections, in fulflment
of promise to ono Of the friends Of the pend
ing bill, that we would examine it. and give
our views; and We frankly state, that before
its examination, we were led from what we had
heard, to think favorably of this change.
A thorough examination Of It has resulted in
solemn conviction that "coafusion soOrse
COMPOUNDED" would follow its adoption. We
have no time, space, or inclination to 80 into
the details Of our objections
There is further objection to the scheme.
1t cruelty and unjustly throws judges out Of
service, without the pretext Of necessity, and
when, SO far as our opinion goes, there is not
the slightest prospect, that ADLER, more learned,
and moro honest judges would be appointed.
Nay more; wo might go further and say, that
it is not improbable that the change in this
respect, would be loss of intellect, Of charac-
ter and competency. We have had quite
enough Of denagoguism (by which term we
hope we are UNDERSTOOD in Congress and in
tho Executive departments, without being
cursed with such elements upon the bench.
But let that pass. We "know nothing" as to
who would be appointed-we only have our
fears.
Here let us ask, wherefore the necessity Of
busting the present judges? Are they incom.
petents Are they dishonesty They may, foi
sught we know, be unpopular. II they are
incompetent or dishonest, the constitution has
pointed out the remedy, and the mode Of theii
removal If they are simply unpopular, il
only shows that they do not cater to public
sentiment II they did 80, they could descrpt
removal. But one Of the judges is an invalid
Be IL So The tenure Of his office is "durins
good Jeharior !" and unless he has mis6ehaped
il would be cruelty to increase his misfortunes
by hesping bcggary upon infrmity. Judge
Cranch enlisted for the soar," and served
faithfully till stricken down with disease in the
service OF the country, and is as much entitled
to his salary during his engagement as the
sick and disabled soldier, marine or officer, in
the army or navy, for whom the laws Of Con,
gross provide. Such was his contract with the
government and ii is dishonest to repudiatt
that contract Such also was the contract with
Judges Morsell and Dunlop But only tot
judges are required under the proposed bin fo'
chancery and common law proceedings. Why
not then, by simple provision of law, direc'
the two able bodied judges to divide their la
bors, the one by exercising chanccry, and the
other common law powers, IL division Of jnris
diction be desirabler
Or why not do, as we think, even better
than this, by directing the present Circuit
Court to sit eight times year, four as a cour
Of chancery, and four MS a court Of law
They have no territorial circuit to pcrsmbu
late--aIl their duties are discharged within tn,
city Of Washington, and they could be re
quired to sit monthly If necessary. Thi
would remedy the main ooil compliance
Of TO wit: "dclay." And why not also dircc
the Circuit Court to establish new set o
rules for proceedings in chancery and law Il
facilitate and expedite Judicial proceedings
If the court were to sit four times year TO
the trial OF common law cases, and four time
as court Of chancery, and IL the rules Of cour
were to be amended as above, there would b
no complaint of delays And then, IL new
code Of laos were provided, justice would b
administered with all proper despatch
We desire in conclusion to say, that VI
have no friends to favor, and no enemies h
thwsrt, in the suggestions we have made, b.
that, As an independent citizen, and the con
ductor Of candid press, we simply exercise
without concert or control tho privilege Of Civ