The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-02-12
JUDGE SUTHERLAND'S TERM.

TO TnE EDITOR OF THE HERALD
Several Of your contemporaries have been discuss
ing the legal question about Judge Sutherands TERM
There occurs to mo point that they overlook. They
seem 10 exclusively criticise thus matter as II the
amended judiciary article which the seventy
year old prohibition clause the OF
sIitution. In People vs. Potter, Al New York, 375,
the Court OF Appeals say that the Intent vi the const
tuition must prevail and 'every part OF tho constitu-
ton must be viewed in connection with the whole
render It harmonious IN all its parts" Now prior to
article being amended I'm which, at section l3 will
be found The prohib,ton) section IL OF article
Ia read thus:-"rhe Superior Court, Com.
mon Pleas, Session AMI surrogato's Court
oi the city of New York shall remain" &C.,
Whom there became established the amendments TO
article the revisers had taken the Superior Court
and CJmmon Pleas out OF such section IL and had
aided them 10 tho provisions IN section IL vi article
but had lett the reference to the Sessions Court TO
remain In the constitution unimpaired. Suppose
these two first courts had been left to keep
pany With the SESSIONS would not the prohibition
against Tue judge vi any" court sitting alter there
had closed the year ia which he became seventy
ola have applied TO the judges Y. The Common Pleas
aud Superior CourtY Does not the word "any" that
qualihes c0uTp apply to the Sessions which recog
nized as court BY anol ner part OF the
Again, what the intent of the constitution naKerss
Was II not TO select seventy Us tho average
scripturaI ana medical oi lie At when
impareds Thus would reading OF the debates indi-
cafe. Besides Why afnx the prohibition OF seventy
" Judge Of The Oyer and rermIncr aud 10 Ut
the Sessions Court That has Coordinate Jurisdiction
over the lie anu liberty OF onendersY
Ii the constitutional prohibition dad apply TO Judge
Sutherland ON ana alter New YEARS. day last then the
prohibition Is broad that his term absou ely
Killed on that day Ii this proposition DO sound then
the grave question arises whether ho 10 de JdcfO
judge even, and whether CONVICTIONS before him
vad THIS IL not political, but grave legal and pub
hc question. Ought not then, friendly case ~ be
made ana the point ut once sent " the Court OF Ap
peulsy
Judge Sutherland Is himself q special instance Of
tho aUsurdity OF tho seventy year limit. Neverthe-
less rule Is not " be con strued by exeeptvus He
IL male, hearty ani vigorous OF mind He brings TO
his work an unsurpassed brain that guided by eight
years experience IN CRIMINAL law old District
Attorney, ana by sixteen years u Judge OF oyer
aud Iernner aud by live years IN the Sessions. Ii
The limit applies to hun tLen great pubic damage
may he done ny the pubic enduring COW
Of criminals. For IL will be remembered mat when
the Special Sessions adj udged to DO lles sy held
the IKE embarrasstnents existed.
Nor do believe, as Is asserted by morning
paper that certain judges oil supreme Court nave
Expressed themselves 10 tho effect Judge suther
land OUTSIDE Of tho age limitation These judges are
not The men " decide question upon sell ANNA
ton nor without argument, nor are they nkeiy 10
easily jump Al tho CONCLUSION mat The prohibition OF
the constitution intended TO make fowl Of au
Oyor and Tern,ner judge yet leave OF the Ses-
siOns JUDGES Ia the unimpaired flesh.
AN AGED LAWYER