Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1879-03-01
BAR MEETING.
The Members OF the Memphis Bar
Place. Themselves upon Record
in Opposition to any Change
In the Judicial System
OF the state

From a reportorial view, there was decidedly
a strong and respectable gathering OF the
legal fraternity In the chancery court yester,
day morning, pursuant to a call made several
days since. Colonel Josiah Patterson was
called to the chair, and stated the object and
purposes of the meeting TO be "to protest
against the Judiciary bill, now pending before
the legislature, as far as Shelby county Is
concerned" The speaker proceeded to ex-
press his views in the matter, saying that the
passage Of such measure would be public
calamity, especially as far Shelby county
is concerned; that our courts are employed
constantly for nine months IN the year on the
law and equity dockets, and even unable to
dispose of shsm; that frequent changes IN
our Judiciary system were not to be desired,
but should be avoiGed; that such legislation
brings confusion, and lnterferes materially
with the uniform administration of justice.
He made no distinct issue as 10 the abolish
ment of the Bartlett court, but deemed the
adjustment of the probate court impEac-
ticable, in view of the rights and interests OF
widows and orphans.
The next In order was the appointment OF
a committee, consisting of b. Nj. Estes, h. }.
Morgan and S. P. Walker, to draft resolu-
lions, etc., who retired, and On returning
presented the following resolutions:
"Flrst-That in the judgment OF the Mem
phis bar no change in the Judicial system OF
Tennessee is required, nor Is any change de-
sirable.
''Second-That the chancery court system,
as il now exists in Tennessee, ought to re-
main intact, and that any change that will
require the equity and common law Jurlsdlc-
| ton to be exercised by the same judge will
be unwise and greatly to be deprecated.
"Third-That, at all events, the Memphis
bar desire that no changes be made IN the
courts of Shelby county"
These resolutions, though adopted, pro-
voked some opposition, and several amend
ments and substitutes were offered, but all
were placed on the table.
1t may not be uninterestlng to note IN bnef
the views of the different attorneys present.
Judge Henry Craft desired to ask the leglsla-
ture to let us severely alone; he was opposed
to the Judiciary bill as far as Shelby county
was concerned.
Judge Heskell, while opposed to the bill,
was in favor of a consolidation of jurisdiction
OF chancery and circuit courts, but did not
believe the present was the proper time to
carry out such project. That the present
judiciary were entirely acceptable, and gave
satisfaction, and that the measure thus to
summary dispose of them was contemplate
and an outrageous political iniquity.
Judge Wright opposed in strong and I'M
qualified terms any proposed change. If any
change should be made, he favored the re-
duction of the number of circuits, but would
keep each system-chancery, circuit and pro-
bate-to itself. That we had too many Off
GERS, and claiming many to be supertiuOus
and useless. That for legislatlopEto supersede
chancery or circuit court system was VIOLA
ton of the constitution.
Colonel NJ Kisick desired that the prayer
to let us alone should embrace Judge Baxter's
court, but In view of recent events this action
was not deemed expedient.
Major Meriwethcr opposed the resolu-
tons, deemlng that simple proviso should
alone be presented, In substance; Where
there are two circuits IN one county, one
judge should sit as chancellor and one as cir
cult Judge" He favored letting the Bartlett
court go, but preserve the probate court.
Colonel CAN'T, in his usual happy style,
expressed his views, approving the resolu-
tons in the main, though opposed to seem to
be debating to the legislative assembly; in
fact, was opposed to throwing stones at that
august body.
Judge Elicit commended that the constitu-
ton required separate circuit and chancery
courts. The legislature was not competent
to make the proposed change. Its adoption
would be public calamity and monstrous
imposition.
Colonel Luke Fiulay counseled moderation.
The legislature was going to make some
changes in the way OF fetienchment, citing
as a precedent that North Carolina, which
has about the same number of inhabitants as
this State, has only thirteen judges, while
Tennessee has thirty-seven.
Mr.. G. F. Vance insisted that his brethren
were proceeding in rather selfish manner
IN seeking a local dispensation, and their
protest should be a general one, opposing
any change in the system generally. Senti-
mental expressions would have no effect, and
would but invite opposition.
Judge Morgan claimed that the purpose Of
those who drafted the resolutions was to
put the bar right on the record, that no limi-
tation on the power of the legislature was
proposed or intended. The proposed change
would be ruinous 10 Memphis and Shelby
county.
Other members of the bar expressed their
views pro and con-, the general sentiment
beng, as Indicated above, IN opposition to
the Judiciary bill.
An amendment offered by Judge w. M.
Smith to the first resolution was accepted by
the committee and adopted.
The amendment of Judge Smith was as
follows: "Unless the legislature shall, Oh in
vestgation, determine that the number of
circuits and chancery divisions should be re-
duced."
On motion the meeting adjourned sine die.