The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-05-13
THE NEW JUDICIARY.

Il
There are several plans proposed for the
Supreme Court as well rs for the INFERIOR
tribunals, but outside OF these schemes Oh re-
organization for the future, there - 9 neces-
sity of devising some means OF getting rid OF
the past Accommodations on the docket o. that
court.
Its business has been too heavy for twenty
five or thirty years, and large number Of
cases are consequently undlsposed OF.
This IA not unusual, IL seems. Many 0fthe
States have encountered the same difficulty,
and the Supreme Court at Washington 10 In
the same condition rs ours.
We are informed that every State which
has had this accumulation on the docket Of its
highest court, has adopted the plan of special
court or commission, to which is entrusted
all the back cases and nothing else Its du-
ration is limited and It's judgments final.
Nothing ID surer guide than experience,
and II other States have surmounted the
same difficulty, all In the same way, 1t Is the
best argument in Its favor. It is worth a
score OF theories and coniectural adaptations
Of new tangled schemes to our present emer-
gency.
Some objection is supposed to be found to
this court In the fact that it might decide any
given question OF law different from the SUI
preme Court, and thus confusion would en-
sue. There are several refutatlons OF that
objection. ..=..
That commission or court would follow the
decisions Of the Supreme Court. as all other
inferior tribunals do.
II new question were simultaneously de-
Il, Il 4boI ToIy
In different ways, the decision OF the latter
court would be the guide Of the profession.
The decisions OF the commission would not be
reported, because the object Of creating 1t is
not to establish precedents and fix legal prln-
ciples permanently, but to get rid Of a present
incubus which is paralyzlng the business OF
the court that does establish precedents and
settle legal principles.
The reconstruction of the Supreme Court
Is engaging the most animated interest of the
members Of the Convention. It's jurisdiction,
the number OF Its members, the appealable
sums. all these questions are provoking dis
cussion in committee and In conversation
There are several plans. The division Of the
court into two equal sections, the full number
OF judges being six, is urged by some, but 1t
appears to find but few advocates. The
machinery would be so cumbrous, unwieldy,
disjointed, and there would be 80 many
bitches and stoppages In Its practical work
ings, that 1t is not surprising IL has not found
much favor.
i II Is also proposed to increase the number
of Judges to seven, or even to nine, and to
dispense with the commission. This is on
the supposition that seuen or nine Judges
could decide more cases than fue. Whereas
nine judges cannot hear any more cases than
five, as they all sit together, and the Oily
effect produced by the Increase would be
that less labor would be performed by each
Judge than now, but no more work would be
done by the court than now. The advocates
of the two-section plan have here manifest
advantage as they propose that each section
shall sit apart, and thus accomplish more.
\ "A third plan Is to reduce the number OF
judges to three, and have only questions OF
law submitted to this court, which we shall
look into presently.
The Jurisdiction, as respects the appealable
sum, depends very much on the plan that
shall be adopted for the other courts. II the
intermediate court Is adopted the sum will
be larger than now. Some propose that II
shall be smaller, and for the reason that pool
man ought to have the same opportunity
to have his case reviewed by the highest tri'
bunal that rich man has, No one will dis
pute that proposition. Perhaps one might &C
further, and say that he ought to have bet
ter opportunity, because his little is some
times bread and meat to him, while the rich
man might not be 50 badly hurt by the loss
of suit. But II the argument Is worth any
thing 1t deserves to be carried to its legiti
mate conclusion. Suppose the appealabl'
sum is fixed ut $500; Is the poor man
who has two hundred and ninety-five dollars
. at stake, the loss Of which will ruin him, tt
be shut out Of the Supreme Court when hi
, neighbor who has three hundred and five dol
lars can 90 there for relief And ii the sun
Is lowered to avoid doing him an injustice
: cannot the question be repeated ad infinit,tn
as to those whose suits involve an amour
below lt2 It must be apparent that such con
siderations cannot exclusively control the ap
/ pealable sum. Like the age Of majority,
has to be fixed arbitrarily, and not because
q is just or unjust that those whose suits in
volve larger amount than others have
better right to be heard In all the courts.
8 The kind Of jurisdiction Is Of far more me
l. ment than Its amount. 1t has been attempte
}. before to convert our Supreme Court into
y court Of errors alone. but happily withou
0 success. Ii there were no other reason In fave
3 OF the present system than that 1t has worke
b satisfactorily ever since we have had cour
8 that alone ought to have weight. The so
9 drawback seems to be that business ma
t again accumulate, but Is 1t not better to pr,
Q vide for that special contingency In speci,
!, manner than to frame permanent system |
n meet an occasional want?
q Lawyers OF the largest and most varied e,
9 perience believe that Supreme Court, shor
u of cognizance of the facts would be deprive
Q Of half Its usefulness, and that its power |
9 correct the finding Of facts by jury or by
- Ar x~As 49,