The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1875-08-21
To the Editor of the Dallas Herald :

To the Editor of the Dallas Herald:
The constitution requires that the
state shall be divided into oonven-
lent Judicial b stricts. Now the
inquiry | propose to make, and
shall attempt to answer, is, las this
requirement. been complied with ty
the law-making power of the State =?
The inquiry is one Of vital il tarest to
every citizen of Texas. 1t is believed
by many that this subject will receive
more attention from the Constitutions
al Convention, which will sCOa meet,
than has hitherto been given it. and
by others it is insisted that that body
should re-distrct the State into "A
greater number of judicial Districts
than it contains at present 1t is
deemed quite proper and right that
ihis subject should be Ggituted mt this
time that our delegates may be nd
vised of the wishes Of their cOnstitu-
entS, and that the merits of the ques-
ton may be discussed and deve0ped :;
TO the end they may be the better pre-
pared to give the matter such cOnsid.
Grafton as it demands. shall under
take TO show that this provision of our
constitution has not been observed by
our Lawmakers, and that the wants Of
0Ir people are such as demand an in
cease Of tie present number Of Judi
cal districts in the state. Ii has been
urged by the advocates Of retrench-
ment and reform that the present
nuMber of Judicial Districts should he
reduced, and in order to effect this, it
is insisted that the jurisdiction of JUS
Jices of the Peace should be increased,
that the probate business should be
administered in the County Courts,
or by county Judges, and that said
courts should have limited, civil and
criminal, Jurisdiction. These proposed
reforms. it 10 claimed, will divest the
District Coirts of much Of the business
which would otherwise enaumber their
dockets While favor the restoration
of county courts with county Judges,
with limited civil and criminal inris-
dictiOn, and the administration of pro-
bate business by that tribunal, |, new
ertheless, am unable to yield assent to
the conclusion, that the establishment
of such tribunals with such jurisdic-
ton, together with an increase of the
jurisdiction Of Justices Of the Peace,
will diminish the business OF the Dis
trict Courts. My experiences has al
ready taught me that such reforms do
not eradicate the errors aimed Mt, and
sober reflection, with II knowledge of
the facts, will likewise enable us to
detect the fallacy OF the argument.
Under the probate law, as now adj
ministered, there is, comparatively
speaking, no time consumed with pro-
bate business in the District Courts,
and all the business, with the eXcep'
ton of applications to sell land to pay
debts and to provide for the support
and maintainauce of wards, persons of
unsound minds, etc, the approval of
final accounts, discharge and removal
Of administrators and guardians, ana to
relieve surites from their bonds, is
done by the clerks Of the District
Courts. So that, in truth, it may be
affirmed, that nothing will be gained
by this proposed reform viii any
thing be gained by increasing the jur-
isdictiou of Justices of the Peace,
and by comforting limited, civ
Il and criminal jurisdiction on
county courts, or the Judges think, one
and the same argument will suffice to
answer both Of these propositions. 1t
is not insisted by the advocates of these
proposed reforms, that litigants should
be deprived of the right OF appeal from
the IN ferior tribunals to the District
Courts, whether the appeal should be
matter Of right, or under certain re-
strictions, they are not agreed; but Tor
the purposes of the argument, / VIII
assume that litigants will be required
TO resort to the remedy by certiorarl TO
remove their causes into the District
Courts. Then the question still recuis,
what will be gained by the change
The history Of litigation in these IN
ferior tribunals demonstrates the TACT,
that very large majority OF the cases
of any magnitude are appealed. Iheif
lack Of legal learning, ana the cohse-
quent lack of confidence by litigants
in the correctness of their decisions,
will ut once account for the universal
disposition to appeal causes Determined
by them. So that this proposed re-
form will not in fact diminish, in any
considerable degree, the business OF
the District Courts. And all that can
be predicated of It, is, that the SAID
courts will take appellate instead OF
original jurisdiction Of these causes
These views are opposed to those en-
tanned and expressed by some OF the
candidates in their speeches in the late
canvass for the Constitutional ConVen,
tion. 1t is hoped that the better ana
sounder ones will prevail IN that BODY
If am correct in stating that tn'
more important causes Ill tnesI
inferior tribunals will be appealed and
tried de moro in the District Courts
then 1t Is quite obvious, that the prop
osed reforms, looked mt from thl
standpoint of economy, VIII iail &c
convince the most credulous OF III
soundness, and II may be safely aillrm
ed, that the proposed change VIII III
crease, rather than diminish, the On
pense Of litigation, for the simple an,
obvious reason, that two trials VII
have been had of these appealed cases
The question is daily asked by many
why Is not the business OF the court
disposed of? The answer to this ques
ton Is the solution of the whole troun
)e. There may be many causes u
which the delay is referable, but b
these many or few, there is one all i'm
portant controlling one. This caus
may he found In the adhei
ence to fixed number of Judicia
Districts, regardless of tie wants an
necessities of our people, arising iron
the newly developed and rapiui.
changing condition of our state.
II is u total blindness to these iact
which has provided SO much criticism
and complaint, and which has cause
80 many to feel so keenly the inlustlc
of the claws delay Thousands to,uu
feel that gross injustice has been uoh