New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-01-01
LONG C.1LE.ND1R.S.

Application is to he made to the Legislature
at its next session to mature an amendment
to the State Constitution authorizing an in
crease of the Judicial force. Serious necessity
for an increase has long been felt. The
present system dates from 1916 1t was
doubtless at that time deemed sufficient for
the probable wants of the State for twenty
years; for the Constitution contained n pro-
vision looking toward an entire revision in
1866. No such revision was then made, nor
have the various amendments made any I'M
pOrtant addition to the number of Judges of
the Supreme Court. That Court has now one
more Judge than it had as constituted in 1916.
Meantime, during the third of century which
has elapsed, the population of the State has
nearly doubled, and, what is much more i'm
portant to the question OF an adequate
Judiciary, its business, in almost every branch
of industry, has probably quadrupled. 1t
is not enough realized by those who
frame organizations of courts that the
Law business Of a community increases
according to the increased number and
compexity of business relations, and often
far on strips numerical growth of 20 ulation
One hundred thousand persons scattered over
an agricultural country and living largely on
the produce of their farms do not develop
any such number of lawsuits as arise among
the same number of persons gathered in q
city and dealing intimately with each other In
the varied branches of modern commerce and
manufactures.
There is no doubt that the frequent COM
plants of inadequate number of Judges in the
Supreme Court arc well founded. The pres
ent movement was started by convention of
the Bar which met last August at Saratoga,
recommended change, and appointed com
mittee to collect statistics and draft the proper
law. By the report of this committee. the
general facts appear to be that the business of
the Supreme Court in its various branches,
and throughout the State, is seriously behind
hand. The calendars generally contain causes
enough to occupy the Court from one to two
years in other words, q suit cannot be begun
IN the Supreme Court, In most counties, with
much probability that it will be tried for q
year or two, and after II has been tried, II the
defeated party chooses to appeal to the Gen.
eral Term, he can-keep the successful one
waiting O couple of years longer. This delay
Ia additional to all the inevitable hindrances
necessary in lawsuits, and to any review In
the Court of Appeals. A long calendar IL,
moreover, an evil which greatly agGravates It.
self; for it Is always observed that. when one
or two years are required to reach q cause,
many causes really indefeDsible are fought on.
merely for the delay. The probability is that
q considerable proportion Of the causes on any
General Term calendar likely TO occupy two
years, are there largely because o defendant
who expects to pay the money some day, Ii
willing to pay interest and term fees rather
than pay 1t now and the long calendar enables
him, IL his lawyer can contrive plausible de-
fence, to retain the money on these terms II
It were the habit Of the courts to call theil