Daily Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1876-1884, 1878-02-13
the supreme Court in Les An
geles.

We have every reason to believe
that the just demand of the people
Of Southern Calf IA that yearly
sessions of the. supreme Court of
!. this State shall be held in Los An
eles will be conn with. We
Barn that all 4he members of the
Legislature from Southern Califor-
mia, with possibly the single ex-
ception of Mr.. Byron Waters, of
San Bernardino, favor it. We
heartily hope that Mr.. Waters, If
he is correctly represented, will re-
consider his position, and give us
the bepB4t of his kindly and neigh
6orly az
&fhe Establishment of two yearly
terms of the Supreme Court In Los
Angeles could not fail to be highly
beneficial to the whole bar Of South
ern California. The present system,
in which the sutton is put to dis
proportionate expense, represses
great deal of litigation, founded in
right, which would be prosecuted to
an issue in the higher courts If the
litigant could afford to pay the ex-
psnses of his lawyer on journey,
going and coming, of between one
thousand and twelve hundred
miles. The bar at large will thus
be benefited, while the Los Ange-
les bar will be the gamer OH an
other ground.
1t is universally conceded that
there are not more than two bars
in the whole State which can. vie
with that Of Los Angeles in ability.
We are pandering to no local van
ity in making this assertion. 1t is
voiced among the most distin'
guished lawyers in the State. BY
the change contemplated the coun'
sci practice of these gentlemen
would be immensely increased.
They would benefit by the same
kind of practice they themselves
are now obliged to send to their
legal friends in San Francisco and
Sacramento. The establishment OF
two yearly sessions of the Supreme
Court here would give scope to their
abilities and a pleasanter rotundity
to their purses.
But to Los Angeles itself the
measure is most important. 1t
would give her the recognition to
which her wealth, population, I'M
surpassed climate and charming
surroundings entitle her. 1t would
make our city more known abroad
and attract regularly here discrim.
mating and intelligent strangers.
1t would, to some extent, put money
In our purses, but it would adver-
tise US in a very desirable and eff
fectual way.
Back of all such selfish consider
ations lies the inherent justice OF
the demand. A litigant residing
on the Colorado has to go nesrly
eight hundred miles to have his
case heard at Sacramento. The
mileage alone is prodigious in such
cases.
The expense to the State would
be mere trifle. A Deputy Clerk
at 81, SEQ a year and tipstave at,
say, $500, with the rent of a suita.
Bile room, would set the whole
thing going beautifully. The State
would be far more than re.im-
bursed for the outlay by the addi-
tional fees which would arise from
cases which 1t would then be pos
sible to carry TO the Supreme
Court.
One of our leading property own
ers assured the writer that pro-
tracted law case cost him $4,000,
because 1t had to be conducted in
the up-country, while he could
have carried it on here for $4,000
If we had had sessions of the Su-
preme Court In Los Angeles. 1t is
not right to subject suitors to such
onerous OUTLAWS.
In view of these facts, every one,
especially every lawyer, who has
any influence in Sacramento,
should exert it to have this bill
pass. 1t would open new era for
Los Angeles, and it would
probably be followed by the crea-
ton of United States District
Court for the Southern District CT
California, with its forum in Los
Angeles. We possessed such a
Court here when we had neither
half our present population nor
wealth, and certainly no valid
reason can be advanced against its
being conceded to US now.