Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1878-10-23

ofcommon school superintendent TO committee on
education.
tachment Of personal property by copy; to COM
mittee on Judiciary.
BY MIR NASH Of Sheburne a petition relating
to noxions weeds; to committee on agriculture.
BY Mr.. HOWE Of Ludlow, to pay s. w. Stmson
the sum therein named to committee on claims.
BY Mr.. SARGENT of Cornth, to amend sec
IA, chap. 49, q r., relating to the grand list; to
committee on grand list.
BY Mr. REDlNGTON Of Rutland, to amend an
act in amendment of chap so, &. T., relating To
HOLIDAYS; to general committee.
BY Mr.. FLETCHER Of Cavendish, to pay Saml
S. Thompson the sum therein named to commit
tee on claims.
By. Mr. DWINELL Of Painfeld, petition re-
lating to better protection Of the records Of the
courts of Washington county; to committee on
public buildings
BY MIR SARGENT Of Corinth, providing for the
compilation of the laws reating to paupers and
the supreme court decisions thereon; to com. on
judiciary.
BY Mi STEARNs of Lincoln, in amendment of
an act relating to the duties and compensation Of
snperintendents OF schools; to com on education
(Makng the pay of the superintendent 81 80 per
day, and ten cents per mile TO meet the state
superintendent
Resoiution-By Mr. wATERMA AN Of johnson, that
the special committee to whom that part of the
Governors message referring to court expenses
was referred, be- and they are hereby instructed,
TO inquire into the propriety OF assessing the sew
eral court expenses in each county on such coun-
ties excepting the salaries of the Judges of the
supreme court, and report to this House by bill or
otherwise adopted.
Special order-H. 81, relating to the supreme
court. was taken up ms the special order, for ten
and half o'clock this forenoon.
Mr.. MILES of Craftsbury said the great reason
Of the increase Of the court expenses is because of
the great increase of crime in the state, and not
because Of the number Of officials connected with
the courts. He would decrease the number Of
..I.. .utt.
upon any Of the present members of the supreme
court; and since 1t has been suggested by some of
the committee on the judiciary that it was posi-
BILE for six judges In do the business Of the courts
he thought could make selection in manner
that would do no injustice to any one. The hus-
in the courts In all the counties in the state
has not decreased, and the number of eases re-
ported by the supreme court has no reference 10
the business in the county courts, and is no cri-
terion by which to judge Of the amount of labor
performed by the judges. He was decidedly OPP
posed to n reduction of the number of supreme
court Judges
Mr.. HUBBARD of Plymouth said it was yes
terday conceded that six Judges could do the
business now performed by the seven, but that
we could not now reduce the number without de-
stroying the harmony of the CONT Our contract
with the present judges has expired; now, II we
find that the business does not require to EN-
ploy the seven judges heretofore elected we
should take the matter into our own hands and
not decline to re-elect the full number of judges
out of courtesy for any member of the present
bench He believed 1t would he of no injury to
the state to cnriail the present expenses for SUI
preme court judges, and therefore was in favor OF
this bill.
Mr. HUSE of Montpelier did not believe that
six judges conld perform the work now devovng
upon the seven His information was limited to
some two or three counties, and in those counties
he knew the large increase OF business WAS such
that 1t required the full number Of seven. lie
moved that the bill be ordered to lie; and II this
ha nt tptr
duce a resolution directing the committee on
salaries and fees to inquire into the expediency OF
now reducing the number of judges
Mr.. MELENDY of Cambridge briefly favored
the reduction of the number of judges.
Mr.. HOWEof Ludlow, and Mr. Sprague Of Bran
don, and Mr. Powers of Ripton, opposed the mo-
ton for the bill to lie.
Mr. HAYWARD Of Addison said II the judges
have to work as hard a. we poor men do who sit
here in the State House, he ptied them. He be-
lieved II we would increase the final Jurisdiction
of justices /. would reduce the amount Of county
court business, and we could safely reduce the
number Of Judges
Mr.. COLLINS Of Barton had seen no evidence
to convince him that six judges could do the
work, and therefore he must oppose the bill to re-
duce the number
Mr.. REDlNGTON Of Rutland said in his sec
ton of the state there was business constantly
arising requiring the services Of the judges and
he believed it impossible for six men to perform
the work now deyolving upon the seven. He was
in favor of economy and retrenchment, but he
would apply IL to those departments of the gov
eminent where it IL apparently necessary. and not
strike at the departments where to reduce the
expenses was IN reduce the efficiency OF the de-
partment The excessive court expenses are due
in great measure to the liquor prosecutions
which have swelled the amount Of money drawn
from the treasury until the people are tired of the
expense. Fe favored delay that there may he u
thorough investigation Of the whole matter, and
find out where the reduction can best be made.
Mr.. HOWE of Ludlow opposed the motion to
lie. He said members have had an opportunity
to inform themselves, and can vote rs under
standingly to-day rs In week from now. lie
hoped we should never see the spectacle of the
supreme court judges coming before committee
OF this House and sneing for retention In place and
office. Let ny settle this question now.
Mr.. BARBER OF Sandgate opposed delay.
Mr.. DWlNELL of Painfeld desired to know II
the work of the judges IL now equally divided
and II the work OF the whole can be put upon six
without detrment to the courts.
Mr.. ALEXANDER of Guiiord agreed with Mr.
Dwnell, and INTERCEPTED the gentleman from
Rutland as to the amount of work required of the
judges In that section.
Mr.. DART of Weathersfeld said that the in
formation that came to him tended to show that
five Judges was sufficient for the business OF the
state and he had been informed that one mem
Der of the Bench would favor a reduction OF
the court to five Judges provided the pay of the
seven could be given 10 the five. lie believed we
can safely reduce the number of Judges and
Hlbhiu lHNh WIS wv.
Mr.. REDlNGfON Of Rutland had great respect
for the opinions Of gentlemen who have spoken
on this question. but favored caution and no
hasty action. 81 far as lie understood il the work
Of the judges was pretty equally divided, but he
would like a delay that we may learn more of the
facts in regard ut.
MIR. HUBBARD of Plymouth, said il it was, as
admitted by the gentleman from st, Johnsbury
yesterday, matter of mere courte,y that it be-
comes necessary for us to retain the seven Judges
we better lay aside courtesy and reduce our ex-
penses.
Mr.. POLAND of St. Johnsbury said the mat
ter of Judicial harmony among the judges was
one of the most essential points for their useful
ness, and now to say to any one of them that
they must step down, would tend to destroy the
harmony Of the court. He was originally opposed
to the increase OF the number from six To seven
judges, and stood almost alone in the profession