Claiborne guardian. [volume] (Homer, La.) 1877-188?, 1881-09-07

taxation ~ the parishes Hnd anOIu
ed substantial reliet to the people.
The present Constitution vests in
the Supreme Court power to try
and remove from Office inferior
judges found guilty OF habitual
drunkenness, nOnfpasance, misfeas.
ance, incompetency or corruption in
office.
This was a wise and necessary
amendment to the Judiciary system
of 1852. 1t preserves good morals,
maintain the dignity OF the bench,
and secures a pure administration of
the laws in the interest of public or.
der and good governmet.
The present Constitution also
vests in the Supreme Court power
TO restrain inferior Justices within
the limits OF their jurisdiction aud
TO compel them to perform their
duties under the Constitution and
laws Of the State in NIL cases,
whether appealable to the Supreme
Court or not. This was also Il wise
AMI necessary amendment TO the
judiciary system of 1852. 1t pre-.
vents DENIAL Of Justice and secures
and cnforces the legal rights of the
people in the inferior courts of the
State.
The present Constitution estab.
lisEed courts of appeals to remedy
the greatest of all eNits III the at
minisira'i0n OF justice, the vexa.
tlons and rninous delays in the trial
OF appeals in the Supreme Court of
the State.
For this evil there WAS only one
remedy. which wds TO Increase the
amount in dispute from which an
appeal would liz 10 the Supreme
Court. AS this amount is increased
III the same proportion is the right
of appeal diminished, unless souie
inferior appellate tribunal bc estab.
liShed in which ;he right can be
exercised.
In order to reduce the number of
appeals to the Supreme Court, and
~ the same time not diminish or
deny the right of appeal when the
anionnt in dispute is less than the
appealahlr amount to the Supreme
Court, IL became necessary to es-
tablish intermediate courts of APP.
peal.
The establishment of these courts
was no novelty, OF experiment.; pre-
ced-nts were found for them in their
judiciary SYSTEMS of England, Of the
different States of the Union aud
of the United States.
There is Il striking analogy I've.
tween the appellate jurisdiction OF
the Circuit Courts of the United
States and the Courts Of Appeal
under the new Constitution.
The Judgment of II Circuit Court
of the United States on appeal
from Il District Court of the United
States is final, both on the law aud
facts of the case when the amount
III dispute does not exceed $1,000.
The judgm at u Cont of Appeals,
under the new Constitution Oh an
appeal from q District Court OF the
State, il also final, both on the law
and facts of the case, when the
amount in dispute does not exceed
81 1000, exclusive of interest.
1t, therefore, there he any well
founded objection TO the appellate
jurisdiction Of the Courts OF Appeal
under the new Constitution, the
same objection existed ia fall force
against the appellate jurisdiction of
the Circuit Courts of the United
States.
IL the appealable amounts to the
Supreme Court of the State, under
the Constitution, be- insufficient TO
enable that court to consider aud
dispose Of the appeals before it,
within a reasonable delay, then
that amount will have to bp further
increased, and the appellate juris.
diction OF the courts of appeal will
have TO be also corresIundingly
increased by amendments to the
Constitution.
THIS -. however, q matter which
the future business in the courts can
alone determine. The judiciary sys.
tenn under the new Constitution is
giving entire satisfaction to the
people, and no just cause of com.
plain, can M urged against it.
There can he no reasonable oh;pc.
,ions to the amendments which the
Constitutional Convention of 1879