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

TO ruE EDITOR HERALD
Several Of your contemporaries have been discuss
ing the legal question about Judge Sutherand's term
There occurs to point that they overlook. They
seem 10 exclusively critIcse thus matter as II the
amended judiciary article which the seventy
year old prohibition clause was the whole OF the
stitution In People VS.. Potter, Al New York, 375,
the Court OF Appeals say that the intent oil the const
tuition must prevail ana every part OF tho consttu-
ton must be viewed connection with the whole
render 1t harmonious IN oil It's parts" Now prior to
article being amended I'm which, at section 49, will
be found the prohibition) section ~ of article
Ia read thus:-"rhe Superior Court, Com
mon Pleas, Session and Surrogato's Court
OF the city of New York shall remain" &c,
When there became established the amendments to
article the revisers had taken the Superior Court
and Common Pleas out OF such section IL and had
aided them 10 tho provisions section - o article g.
but had lett tho reference to the Sessions Court TO
remain In the constitution .unmpaired. Suppose
these two first had been also left to keep CON-
pany With the Sessions, would not the prohibition
against Tue judge ot any" court sitting after there
hau closed the year in winch he became seventy years
ola have applied TO the judges y. the Common Pleas
and Superior Courtg Does not the word "any" that
qualities "courp apply to the Sessions which Is recog
nized rs court by another part OF the constitution
Again, what the intent Of the constitution maxers
Was II not TO select seventy US tho average
scripturaI ana medical ora Of lie At which
physical strength ana mental usefulness began ~ DO
impairedY Thus would reading OF the debates indi-
CATE Besides, Why afix the prohibition OF seventy
" judge OF The Oyer and und not TO vi
the Sessions Court that has coordinate Jurisdiction
| over the lie anu liberty OF oncndersY
II the constitutional 0nibi ton did apply TO Judge
Sutherland alter New YEARS. day last tnen the
prohibition Is broad that his term absolui ely
killed gu tnat day Ii this proposition DO sound then
The grave question arises whether ho II de JdcfG
judge even, and whether convictions before him are
vad This IL not political, but grave legal and pub
lie question. Ought not, then, friendly case to De
made ana the point at once sent ~ the Court OF APP
peusr
Judge Sutherland Is himself special instance OF
the aUsurdty OF tho seventy year limit. Neverthc.
less rule Is not ~ be COM trueu by EXCEPTIONS He
IL male, hearty anu vigorous OF mind He brings &C
his work unsurpassed brain that guided by eigh
years experience IN criminal Law old District
Attorney, ana by sixteen years as Judge OF oyer
aud Iermiuer aud by nve years IN the Sessions. Ii
the limit applies to hun tEon greut pubic damage
may De done by the public enduring void
Of criminals. For II will be remembered mat when
the Special Sessions ADJ udged to DO lay held
Tho nke embarrassInents existed.
Nor do l believe, us Is asserted by morning
paper that certain Judges oil the Supreme Court
Expressed themselves 10 The effect Judge Sutner
land Is OUTSIDE Of the age Limitation. These judges
not the men " decide question upon ssliex
ton nor without argument, nor are they nkely u
easily jump Al the conclusion mat The pro-
the constitution was intended TO make fowl Of aI
Oyor ana Terminer Judge yet leave ono OF the Ses
siOns JUDGES IN the unimpalred flesh.
AN AGED LAWYER