Iron County register., 1882-10-05

form law in the State is plain to ever
1observing mind. Both justness an
expediency require that the law shal
be the same everywhere in the sam
Commonwealth, and no system of ju
ldicature ought to be established the re
suit of which will be diverse law
Next November the people of Missouri
will vote to adopt or to reject pro
posed amendment to our State Consti
tuition. That amendment consists sub
stantially of two propositions: The frs
is to divide the Supreme Court into tive
departments or ''sides," with three
Judges in each "side," and to let eact
''side" finally determine causes; the
second is to erect the st. Louis Court
of Appeals into a Supreme Court fol
all civil causes in the city of st. Louis
1t is proposed, however, that q right OF
appeal from the Court of Appeals to
the Supreme Court, called "rehear.
ing" shall be preserved in some cases,
but under such restrictions as make
the right practically useless. Among
these restrictions is one which requires
that sit shall be made to appear to the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that
the Court of Appeals has within two
months rendered decision contrary
to some decision of the Supreme Court"
before the party shall be allowed his
appeal or "rehearing;;" and then both
courts shall sit together to decide the
case. Under a similar restriction q
right to appeal from one "side" of the
Supreme Court is preserved to party
to bring the cause before both "sides."
By this scheme the Chief Justice is
to be made the absolute autoerat in al
lowing appeals. None can be had
without his consent or approval. The
questions properly arise: First-Why
invest one man with such enormous
powers? Second-Why divide the Su-
preme Court into two "sides" for the
final determination of causes if the
Chief Justice can order an appeal from
one "side" to be heard by both "sides"?
Third-Why divide the Supreme Court
into ''sides" if the judgment of one
"side" can be annulled by the other
''side"? Fourth-Why make the st.
Louis Court Of Appeals a Supreme
Court for st. Louis in all cases where
in the Chief Justice may refuse an ap-
peal from its judgment?
10 fo xran knoxrr that -nxx,
questions are continually arising in
our courts, questions upon which there
are no previous adjudications in this
State, and upon these no right Of ap-
peal or "rehearing" is to be given from
either "side" of the Supreme Court or
from the Court Of Appeals. It Is also
we'll known that in causes which can
be carried up under our present Consti-
tuition many unanimous decisions of the
Court of Appeals have been unani-
mously reversed by the Supreme Court.
Indeed, the two courts proceed upon
entirely different principles and lines
Of reasoning, and upon the same facts
arrive at directly contrary conclusions.
In cases involving less than twenty
five hundred dollars we already have
one kind of law for st. Louis and four
while for the other portion of
the State another kind of law is an
by the Supreme Court.
The only use and purpose of Su-
preme Court at all is to correct errors
Of the trial courts, if any errors shall be
made, and to thereby enforce uniform
law throughout the State. This end is
readily attained when the court of re-
view is one body, or when it is divided
into departments with specified classes
of causes assigned by law to each de-
partment for final decision there
Then no clashing of judgments can be
or conflict of authority oc-
cur. But with complicated and con-
dicting combination of four heads, con- |
sisting of two separate courts, and one
Of them double and divided against it.
self, and the Chief Justice as an inde-
pendent, extraordinary potentate, We
could have uniform law about as well
As farmer could work four bulls with |
ocked horns. No such judicial mon
'trosity has heretofore been established
n America, and that it could mete
,ut justice Is impossible. If causes
we're ever carried to such "rehearing"
he legal merits would be lost in the
abyrinth of proceedings and multi
,lied expense; and if not 80 "reheased,"
hen each court, or "side" of court,
would make the law to suit itself.
Surely the citizen should reflect be-
ore voting in favor of such an intoler-
Ible combination OF contradiction for a
supreme Tribunal of Justice. Expert
nee has approved that the st. Louis
COURT of Appeals is useless bulden; {
'ut to increase it's powers is not the !;
way tn relief. Let us not go from bad /
o worse, nor act thoughtlessly. The