Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1881-06-30

''i, tue scVcnty-seVen Judges gave
one for every 1926. So that instead
OF their being an unreasonable increase
IN the number of judges there was no
increase in proportion to the increase
Of population. Under the provisions
Of this bill each judge on an average
would have done the business for
more than four thousand more people
than Judge did under the census of
1870. BY an express provision of
the constitution Of 1873, Philadelphia
was given t1celUe Common Pleas Judges
besides her separate Orphans Court
judges, and Allegheny county sir
Common Pleas judges and separate
Orphans Court judge The legisla-
ture fixed the number of Orphans
Court judges in Philadelphia at three,
thus making fifteen law judges in a
county, which by the census Of 1870
contained only 674,O22 population or
one judge for every 44,348 inhabit-
ants. This was not the work of any
rooster in the legislature, but the work
Of the Constitutional convention, the
ablest body Of men ever convened in
the State; and this work was ratified
by the largest majority ever given at
an election in Pennsylvania. The
same authority fixed the lowest num-
Der Of judges the legislature could
provide for Allegheny county at seren,
when she had population of only
262, ,204, or one Judge for every 81 ,457
inhabitants. Now Allegheny has
eight law judges with a population of
35j,769, or one judge for every A.
AL inhabitants, and Philadelphia has
n judge for every j6,263 inhabitants.
No complaints have been made by the
Governor or the newspapers that Ell
ther Philadelphia or Allegheny have
more judges than are necessary to do
the work while, on the other hand,
their judges have been for seven years
all drawing from one to two thousand
dollars per year from the State Treas
ury more than the country Judges,
and the excuse given is that they have
such heavy work TO perform. If we
consider the conveniences for attend.
ing 10 the business of courts existing
in large cities, or thickly settled com.
inunities, the saving of time in the
parties, witnesses and jurors, having
no great distances to travel, we will
see that both of these counties OF
Philadelphia and Allegheny have a
much greater judicial force in proper.
tion to the population than the bill
vetoed gave to the State at large. In
most of the counties in the State
Monday forenoon and Saturday after
noon of each week is totally lost, by it
being necessary for parties, witnesses,
jurors, and sometimes the judges, to
occupy them in travelling to and from
the court. None of this lJss of time
need to occur in the large cities.
The legal business of nearly every
county in the State is now so far be.
hind as to be bar to the speedy adj
ministration of justice. The whole
number of Judges provided for in the
bill would not have been sufficient TO
do all the judicial work there is for
them TO do in the next ten years, and
TO do it promptly as it ought to be
done. In many instances no doubt,
the Judges do not work as they should
work, but it is not because there is no
work to do, but because they are in
disposed to doit If necessary let the
legislature enact coercive measures to
compel this work TO be done speedily
and promptly.
The Philadelphia Times, in the is
sue containing the Governors veto,
makes two significant admissions, viz !:
that its own persistent statements of
the provisions of the bill we're false,
and that the reasons for the veto we're
not those given by the Governor.
Why that and the other newspapers
in and out of Philadelphia have so
persistently misrepresentcd the pro-
visions of the bill, especially.as to the