Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1877-03-24
JUDICIAL REFORM.
A Startling Array Of Figures for Tax
payers---Changes Recommended
by the Joint Committee
Of the General
Assembly.

The following able and highly i'm
portant report was presented in th'
House on the 18th ult.
Mr.. SPEAKER-The Joint Com
mittee appointed under House join
Resolution No. SO, to ascertain and re
port to the General Assembly the cost
of juries in civil cases to the countie,
from the first of January, 1875, to the
first of January, 1877, as we'll as the
other cost of the Circuit and Chancery
Courts to the counties Of the State fol
the same period, and to ascertain and
report needed judicial reforms, beg
! leave to submit the following:
The Committee has used its utmost
diligence to ascertain the facts called
| for, and submit the result in the ae-
companying tabular statement, marked
Exhibit A to this report, and papers
Herewith. 1t will be seen that we
have been able TO get returns from only
forty-two counties in the State. In all
the counties heard from except David
son, Giles, Knox, Marshal. Maury.
Montgomery, Rutherford aud William
son, the cost of juries in civil and
criminal cases is blended. In the
county of Shelby the Bartlett Court
has civil and criminal jurisdiction
while the civil Court held in Memphis
has only civil jurisdiction. Notwith
standing this apparent confusion, an
inspection of the returns will enable
us to approximate the cost of iuries in
the civil cases in the Circuit Court. A
careful inspection of the returns from
counties where the two Jurisdictions
are separated, enable us to reach a ba-
sis of probable truth in dividing the
items in counties where the Circuit
Court exercises criminal as we'll as
civil jurisdiction. We think, from the
returns, that the proportion should be
as two-6fths to three -fifths, the former
representing cost of juries in civil ca
ses. Taking this as a basis, we find
the cost of juries in civil cases last
year to the counties heard from amounts
to the sum of $42, ,75410. Add to this
the other costs of the Circuit Court
paid by the counties last year the sum
of $36. .S24.S9, aggregating the sum of
$79, 1878 SO. The item of $36, ,S24.89 in
cludes the cost of misdemeanor prose
cutions in some of the counties. The
entire cost of the Chancery Court to
the forty-two counties heard from
amounts to s., ,63925. This is certainly
to many persons startling exhibit of
the comparative cost to the counties
of these two systems ofcivil procedure.
The people do not know how much
they are taxed.
We take it that in the judgment of
the legal profession the Chancery
Court is preferred to the Circuit Court
as a tribunal for the ascertainment Of
justice between litigants. Through
succeeding counties we find that the
jurisdiction of the Chancery Court has
steadily increased, and although at
times a mistaken popular prejudice
has been engendered against it, yet the
calm judgment of those best calcula-
ted to form an intelligent opinion of
the merits or demerits of judicial sys-
TENS have cherished this simple and
efficient tribunal. Very many lawyers,
in the light of their professional expe-
rience, will certainly concur in the
opinion that the business dispatched
in the Chancery Court exceeds largely
in Importance and quantity that dis
patched by the Circuit Court. We
think that it is the peculiar province
of the law making power to foster and
augment the jurisdiction of a court
which signally combines the excellen-
ces of great efficiency and economy.
We are aware that any effort to RENE