The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1881-09-07

our system Of Jurisprudence; that it is
dangerous to trust such power in the
nahas OF petty officers, or it would be if
'nefe was any danger of any such suit
ever being brought; and finally, with
Tue conflict between Articles 50, 1873
anu 2oo it isquestionable if any remedy
at all is furnished. We can't stop nor
nave we space to argue that question.
But he thinks again that the present
instrument makes another commenda-
Die change in giving the Supreme Court
supervisory control over inferior
courts as Article 80 does, in fact do,
ana we are compelled to take issue with
MN there also. That Article has al
ready been subject to the Interpretation
OF the Supreme Court and has produced
great deal of confusion. The power
granted is very indefinite and violates
the prime requisite in matters of d ju-
dlclal nature;i. e. certainty. We have
no reason to believe, nor do we think,
that the Supreme Court will abuse the
power conferred, but litigants them
selves are uncertain as to the extent Of
the relief given and, if the object was
TO relieve the Supreme Court of it's bur-
den by limiting its jurisdiction to $1,000,
it is illogical to extend its jurisdiction
to an indefinite extent in certain cases,
the number OF which cannot be ascer-
tanned. TITS better sometimes to have
a case settled wrong than to prolong
the litigation. Ills safer to stick to
the old landmarks. This was another
experiment..
He goes on then to excuse the sys-
tenn of Courts of Appeal upon the
ground of their necessity to relieve
the Supreme Court and to avoid vexa
tious delay in the trial of appeals to
that Court. The country Parishes
have never suffered in that respect
Their appeals are speedily heard and
decided with all desirable dispatch.
1t is true that the Court is, or was be.
hind, with it's City docket, but some
able lawyers think that the proper
remedy was in the increase of the
number of Judges of the Supreme
Court, or better still, in the organiza.
ton OF a temporary Court of Appeals,
composed of City Judges to try City
cases until the docket was cleared OF
all the delayed appeals. 1t is not as
serted anywhere that if the Court was
up with its docket, it would have any
trouble in keeping straight with it.
On the contrary, as we have already
said, litigation is diminishing in boil,
the City and country. There was no
actual necessity for meddlng with its
appellate jurisdiction. The Circui,
Courts, or more properly Courts OF
Appeal, ale powerless to afford the
desired relief. There was no prece-
dent for them that We know of in this
country and if England has any such a
system we guarantee that their Courts
are differently constituted. Ten Jud
gcs to try appeals involving sums be.
tween 5000 and $1,000, at an expense
of $4,000 per year, is judicial farce
perhaps it would be more courtcous
to say, an expensive luxury.
The last point made by "North Lon.
isiaua" in favor of the Courts of Ap-
peal is the weakest of all. The fan.
cied analogy between our Courts o1
Appeal and appeals from the Circui,
Courts of the United States to til,
United States Supreme Court is imag.
mary entirely. The Judiciary sy
of the United States as established b,
the Judiciary Act of 1889 with some
amendments, consists OF Supreme
Court, Circuit Courts and District
Courts. They correspond to our oil
system of Supreme Court, Distric
Courts and Justices of the Peace, nut
tatis nutandis. If the United State.
Supreme Court in trying appeals from
the various Circuit and District Courts
-i;ch are both Courts of original iu-
risdiction in their spheres, had got be.
hind with its docket, and it does take
three years to have an appeal decided
there, and Congress had organized ar
intermediate Court of Appeals, say Il
try all cases up to $4,000, then Con
gress would have done in effect wha
the Constitutional Convention of 1875
did in giving us an intermediate Cour
of Appeals, with appellate jurisdiction
only. But Congress has done no sucl
thing and there is no analogy what
ever. Perhaps "North Louisiana" wa!
presuming upon our ignorance" whet
lie sought to make US believe tina
there was. He might as we'll hav,
tried to find parallel between til,
Courts of Appeals and our Distric
Courts which hear appeals from Mag
lstrates' Courts. To summarize as h,
does: -
!. We object to his amendments
as innovations, that they are visiona
~, experimental, useless, expensive
and violative Of Democratic preceden
and usage.
2. That the speedy administrator
fJustice under the amendments" t,
the Constitution is chimerical only
and that if it we're real, the same re-
suits could have been more economi
caily obtained by rigid adherence t,
the text of the Constitution of 1852
/ 3. That drunken Judges are no NOR,
lon VrY