New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-01-30


and st. Louis, the other at Cincinnati and New
YORK, dispensing with their sitting at Washington.
The breaking up of the present Supreme Court
might be fraught with disastrous consequences.
1.-The Mississippi Constitution of 1888 provided
for one Supreme Court of Chancory. The system
broke down under the vast weight of business
thrown upon it, The Legislature, rs a
measure of relief resorted TO the sys-
tenn of Vice-Chancery Courts, and the
Supreme Court of the State held them to be constl-
tutional upon test case Iiouston W.. Royston, z
Howardl. The Chancery business was therefore
kept within bounds and decisions were made with
reasonable dispatch. | deem the details OF the
Manning bill as perfect as they can be made. Inc
doubt is as to IFS cOnstitutOrality. i framed the
judiciary bill of the Conicderacy chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, and hence bestowed more
than usual thought on the matter"
George A. Mercer of the Savannah Ga, bar
writes: 81 am deeply sensible of the necessity OF
some action to advance the business Of the Supreme
Court. am not however. prepared to indorSe this
method The question came up for discussion be-
fore the American Bar Association at Saratoga in
August last; and so serious dOubt was experienced
to the con>tituionalty of the proposed plan that
no expression of opinion from the Association could
be obtained. The doubt fully shared, and subsc-
the members of the Supreme Cou:t are thcmse YES
divided upon the question. This doubt in the
Court itself would in my judgment seriously hazard
the eTimcnt."
Ex-COnCressmqn George w. Julian OF Indiana,
writes: The grave need of some device to facili-
tale the dispatch of cases before the Supreme Court
has long been evident, but no IN ans has been sug-
gcsted before to give relief without practically
closing the doors Of this Court of final and National
resort against the consideration OF many of the most
interesting and vital questions affecting the rights
of The people, rescrying the Court almost exclusively
to the uses of municipal and state bodies, great cor
poratiOns and swollen railroad kings. commend
your bill heartily in its general scope, and think it
well adapted to afford a practical solution of the
difficulties of the case
Mr.. Julian III common with several other gentle
men, offers the suggestion that II might be better to
provide for hearing, by the full bench. of those
either division. and adds: This would, perhaps,
slightly increase the draft upon the time and labor
OF the full bench but would not this be amply
compensated by the greater dignity which belongs
to a unanimous decision ?" Two judges reversing
the decision of two judges perhaps of high and
National rcpute in a subordinate court. cannot win
the respect which should follow every judgment OF
the Supreme Court Of the United States.
On the other hand, several gentlemen suggest an
objection to this very feature of the Manning bill.
Alexander Homilton of tue Virginia Bar, says:
AS to section z, 1t strikes me that it leaves the
door for rehearng too wide open in this that if all
OF tvO-thiris OF the Justices OF division do not
concur, then looks as ii rehearlng is matter of
right. OfcOurse litigant viii ak for rchcaring
az long there is chance to get It, and what Is
needed is promptness IN the iinalty OF the decis-
IONS"
w. p. Ba!lirgcr distinguished lawyer Of Gal
weston Tex, cordially approves the Manniug
Iblll, aud discusses its provisions in a
long letter. Among other things he
says: II am satisfied the principle
OF the bill is the true one unless there is very
large curaiment of the right of appeal. That right
ought not to be limited, but extended. l venture
the assertion with great confidence that judicial
officer in the civilized world possesses the enormous
power that adisnct judge possess; %, sitting as cir
cut Judge. as DnetenS OF the decisions OF the cir
cult OF the CiJed states are now mace III the
Sou hern States; decisions abs lutte up to $4,000,
absolute until VeTv recently in criminal eases.
do NOT say appeals should go to the Supreme Court
OF the United States Tor amounts a5 low rs appeals
10 many of the State courts but do say that the
organization Of the Federal judiciary ~ such that
ought TO be tried finally by single judge.
Ii has more power han any man ought to possess.
Hale Mansfield ana Marshall, II they could be com,
bln IitO one man, ought MOI 20 possess IL. Should
appeals DC to Intermediate court or to the supreme
Court at Washington, with ruch subdivisions rs can
po form the requisite bu3lnc3sF The most mature
and best rejection OF which am capable has salts
fled me tnat the latter Is tho wiser plan. Much
greater uniformity will prevail in separate branches
OF the same court than would prevail in courts at
New-O leans ST. Louis. Boston, New-iork. eic. A
review by the hig CHEST body of the Court in Wash
ingtOn, III ali eases III which a review l. desirable
important, can De secured 1.DlN TIE aDDiO
pirate divisions there with more convenience, accu-
Tacy and promDtnesS than by appeals from any III
tprncuIltr court
I'm a letter approyi q the general features of the
bill Judge j. D.. EGmonds, of Washington, says
- la Iowa, when Il was found necessary to provide
for pyeaier dispatch OF litigation, an intermediate
court was established, Inc result was TO hinder
and delay the ultimate decision for none was salts
fed short OF a tLa ap zeal. and soon the law was
foanu to be practically one TO delay the ultimate
deri ion with additional expense and Inconvenience
af,dg a =
cases by divisions OF the Court Is the true way
believe TO expedite business This plan was adopt
ed ly the Parliament of Great Brian, after long
study. and is, think, found to work well"
J. " Van Glider. of the Arkansas bar gives his
OpnOn rs follows: After 4 careful examination, |
have come 10 the conclusion that the bIil emb0dles
the best plan have seen t. relieve the overcrOwd
ed docket of the Supreme Bench, and in addi- !
ton to its facilitating the business of |
the Court the Judges can give their |
time aud attention to that branch of law embrace
in their division, and give II special study. It IL
impossible for any one man to become thoroughly |
yer,ed in ali departments Of law, ana the highest
lttainneuts and greatest ennnence can only be eX
pected IN those VINO devote themselves 10 Specal |
The Hon John Martin, Of the Topeka (Kansa |
bar writes "The trouble IS way back OF this, and /
arose out of the legislation OF Congress on the sub
ect Of eaargng the jurisdiction OF the Circ4it and
District Courts Of the nled states; and l am II
favor o. on ~ one remedy. and that IL 20 repeal al
laws on the jeCt of jurisdiction OF Federal courts
and leave il Just where IL was LEFT by tue original
Judiciary Act Of lIoJ;
to me that the present number of justices cannot 10
ntililel more advant3gcously than by the method |
IN the Manning bill. Ifthe bench Is not !
to be increased in nuInDer, am OF opinion that |
this proposltiOu Is entitled to very careful cOnS.de
ration My own preference is tOr considerable |
increase in the number of associate Justices, aad |
hen perhaps, in order 10 increase the dispatch OF
bu,incss, the clements Of Mr. Mannngs plan !
nlrht he adopted with very great advantage"
j. A. Orr of the Columbus Miss bar, writes: " |
10. tfna. fifnfA 0.strt rtEa
ncals Tor each circuit increasing the judges TO four
or each circuit OF compelling all district Judges
o sIt somewhere with their circuit Judge pre5d-
un Justice their judgment TO be final in all cases of
less than 900. The object chiefly IN this Is 10 ,
ripple the centraiizing OF power at Washington. |
i've us an appeal court 10 SIT III each circuit, 70 be