, 1879-02-23
APPELLATE COURT PRACTICE.
Double transcripts Useless-Enormous Cost
of Making Them.
IN fbt Editor Qj The Tribune.

D0UDl0 lTAu8CEfpLS GSGlEsb-E0oE"0u& N04&
of Making Them.
70 the Editor al The Trtb,lne.
CHICAGO, Feb. 22.-One OF the proposed
Court is that OF transmitting to the Supreme
Court, in cases of apoea! to it from the Appellate
Court, the same transcript or copy OF the record
Of the Court below filed in the Appellate Court,
instead OF incurrng the useless expense and
trouble of again making copy Of that tsan-
script to file. As will be seen, this is matter
Of importance to litieants.
The Clerks of the Appellate Court are eutt
tied TO the same fees Us those Of the Supreme
Court, and those fees are (See. Il, ?. $780, Hurts
Stat, 1870 fifteen cents for each hundred rords!
For the same service the Clerks Of the Cir
cult Court receive ten cents for each 100
words, and that is too high by 80 per cent
i'Stveu ttnts per TOO words would be good wages-
oFHt t6sty 6f tie transcript of the record thus
depending On its length, in some cases amounts
to- $1,000, and rarely is less than s5o,
and is so one-ous 4 charge that u It
can be avoided it should be- The mere copying
Of copy, when the copy itself could serve the
purpoEe Us WELL and when that copy costs "
per cent more than the original copy, strikes
any ordinary mimi simply IS throwing away So
much money.
" men Iuc case Is ulSpuSe0 u i'll LIZ 1appe''a.e
Court the transcript OF the record filed there IS
substantially useless. When the Appellate
Court aftirms the Judgment Of the Court below
or re.nauts it, with such directions aS that no
further proceedings can be had in the Court be-
low, The Supreme Court can review the 1udg-
ment OF the Appellate Court.
For that review the transcript OF the record is
necessary, and why not transmit the record
itself bodily, instead Of being at the expense OF
making copy Of 1t!
In al1 the districts except the First-tte one
in which Chicago is situated-the transcript IN
cascs OF appeal would be Sill IN the same city,
the offices Of the Clerks OF the Second, Third,
and Fourth Appellate Districts being in the
same cities cs those in which the offices of the
Clerks OF the Supreme Court for the Northern,
Central, and Southern Divisions are situated.
The transcripts are then readily accessible to
any one desiring to refer to them 1t will DC
rccollected that, in case Of afllrnance, no opin-
ion is written, and the case IS simply at an end.
so far as tic Appellate Court is concerned, and
goes back to the Court below.
In case Of reversal and remanding with hnal
directions, then it goes back to the Court below.
So that in those cases the transcript is merely
piece Of paper which has served the temporary
use for which it was procured.
It's actual custody is just as we'll IN one place
as IN another. But il the parties when taking
IN appeal from the Appellate Court to the
Supreme Court are to be put to the expense OF
paying fora copy OF this copy 50 per cent more
than its original cost, some good and valid
reason should be shown for such an unnecessary
and Unjust procedure.
If 1t Is thought advisable that record should
be on tlle in the Appellate Court, the Supreme
Court can send the one 1t has used back to tue
Appellate Court in the final disposition of tue
case Oue transcript should serve all the DUR
It is earnestly hoped that the amendment Will
pass xxxf,