Morning journal and courier., 1882-05-11
Thursday Morning, May II, 1882
THE SUPREME COURT.

The necessity for doing something to re- lieye the Supreme court of the United States from the accumulation of business which overcrowds is receiving attention There are now 1,2OO cases on the calendar Before 1847 the number never reached 2OO The ad- vancing fgures-3OO in 1858, 600 in 1870, 974 in 1875, HOO in 187S-show how stead fly the work has increased, while the means of doing it have remained stationary. Dur ing the last eight years 36O cases year have been disposed of, while about 425 cases a year have been added. It would take three years to clear the docket even if no new cases were put upon it. It therefore seems clear enough that under the present system it is impossible for the overworked judges to dispose of the questions coming before them without vexatious and rapidly multiplying delays.
 The bill for the relief of the court offered and advocated in the Senate by one of it's former judges, David Davis, proposes that ir addition to the nifre circuit judges two judges be appointed for each circuit, and that an in- termediate court of appeals be established in
 
 judges, two district judges and the justice of the Supreme court for that circuit. Cases in- volving over $500 could be appealed to this tribunal for review, from which there would be no appeal to the Supreme court unless the amount involved exceeded $1O,OOO, or unless the court unanimously asked for an opinion of the highest court upon a specific question. It is claimed that all the present justices of the,Supreme court favor Senator Davis bill.
 The majority of committee of the Ameri- can Bar Association appointed to consider the matter have reported 8 plan to remedy the evils complained of. This report is signed by four eminent lawysrs-Mr Ed ward J. Phelps of Vermont, Mir. Cortlandt Parker of New Jersey, Mir. W. M. Evarts of New York and Mir. Richard T. Merrick of Washington. These gentlemen recommend that the court be divided into two divisions which shall sit simultaneously and decide all cases except those involving questions of constitutional law and few others The report maintains that there is nothing uncon- stitutional in this,-that, say, five judges are sufficient to decide all cases, and that in most of the cases there is little doubt as to the law applicable to them.
 In criticism of the committees plan it is pointed out that the reports of the Supreme court show that the judges are divided in opinion on large number of the cases, and as one object of the Supreme court is to settle the law, there must be great many cases under such a system in which the law will not be settled, or else will be settled by minority of the judges. To be sure in such case there may be reargument before all the judges. This, however, takes up great deal of time, and entails great expense on the parties. Many applications for hearing by the full bench would be made and unless they were peremptori1y rejected as they probably would not be, they would throw so much business upon the full bench that the desired relief would soon cease to be felt.
 The Bar Association committee objects to Senator Davis plan for an.intermediate court as follows: That to render such plan eff cient, the amount involved necessary to take 8 case to the Supreme court would be so large as to confine that privilege to rich men; that it would remove the Supreme court from the people and shake the popular confidence in it; that the quality of the law settled by the subordinate court would be inferior But foundation and force as those which can be urged against the division of the court, as proposed by the committed