, 1880-12-12
HOW TO RELIEVE THE SUPREME COURT,
Io The Editor OF The [hieaan It;hu,,e

| CHICAGO, Dec. IL" How to Relieve the Su-
prcmo Court is the title Of an editorial in this
| mornings TRIBUNE. In my judgment, it takcs
t tho true ground in saying that an increase Of
the number of Judges Of the Supreme Court OF
| the United States will neither relieve that Court
! nor expedite the business before it. But think
| a mistaken view Is presented in tho statement
that the Supreme Court OF tho United States has
to pass upon report OF the evidence in all cases,
| and in tact try the case tic noro.''
1uErce TINT in equity cases there is practically
| d new trial III the Supreme Court, but in cases
at common law tho seventh amendment to the
Constitution has provided that No fact tried by
jury shall be otherwise reGxatnined, in any
Court of tho Uuited States. than according to the
course Of the common luw." AT cumlnOn law,
CDurts have uniformly held that tho finding Of q
jury on questions OF fact Is conclusive.
The supreme Court or tho United States al
ways refuse 10 hear argument upon questions
Of fuo: on writs Of error, aud though it uftca
ed into the bill Of exceptions yct tho Court al
most always rebukes tnB practice, ana some
times severely, and will in no case cxaninc the
facts further than Is necessary TO correct un-
dcrstanding OF tho question of law presented on
tho record. Indeed, 1t is u gross violation Of the
rules Of court to set out the evidence in cxtcnso
iu tho bill Of exceptions Even when the parties
waive a Jury and the case is tried by the Court,
its finding Of the facts is uniformly held to bo
Court, SO that, in cases Mt common law, the law
aud rules of practice Of the Court are in exact
accord with what the artlclc suggests they ought
TO be.
do not think, however, that limiting the right
OF appeal to the Supreme Court Is the remedy
which ought to be applied: Even now when tho
amount In controversy must exceed Sj,D00 to
enable Il party TO appeal or irtn3 writ Ut cr-
ror, suitors are oftentimcs subjected to great
to one man the .unrcstrnincd power to dstcr-
mine finally the rights Of parties where SO large
a sum rs 81, GU Is In controversy; but to ncrcuse
the power BY limiting the right Of appeal to
cases where the amount Is still larger is but to
increase tho cases where injuries mny be in
tlicted on litigants by the error committed by
single Judge who cannot be convinced OF bis
error.
would suggest that remedy might be pro-
and % 1cs1aminaon % atom Of iho iudsments Of tue cr
cult Courts aud at tho same time relieve tho
Supreme Court without increasing the number
of Judges of the Federal Courts. until it shall be
rendered actually necessary by the accumuia-
don Of business iii them.
intermediate Appellate Courts might be cre-
which should be the Justice Of tho Supreme !
Court assigned to tho circuit the Circuit Judge |
tie axf Hhn might ss CIRCUIT
The sas'DS Justice - of 80 the Supreme Court;
the tn several Circuit JUDGES within tbs district
might be the Judges These Appellate Courts
dsasd pa's n dart o s
and appeals and wrtts Of error bo allowed from
them to the supreme Court only in certain
Cases. 10 Dc pFOFluGU lot III tQ0 EElLuLE uAfC
no doubt some such measure would relieve the
Supreme Court, and enable tho Judges TO dispose
OF all the cases that would be takcn there IN
each term. And know that the Circuit Court
presided over by single Judge would not be SO
much inporfum In imperio In cases tried before
It as now, and there would be secured to suitor3 |
the privilege Of having their judgments re-
viewed, uud their errors corrected by another
tribunal, which is now denied them in SO large |
number OF cases. |
There is another matter of great consequence
which think should arrest the attention Of |