Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-02-11

Il
ing to liugants. Various proposition
have been made, such as the raising Of tn
limit OF appeal from 5000, as it now stand.
to 100000; the abolition Of the right 0
appeal from Territorial courts, and even tn
amending the constitution to exclude iron
| The Supreme Court such cases as fall unde
| its jurisdiction on account OF different citi
zenship of parties. The first OF these would
| amount to a prohibition OF appeal 10 mos
| individuals; the second, while very objec
| tionable, would give but little relief; anC
the third would deprive the court of ar
essential province, and also avail but littl'
| toward the desired end. While the bes
remedy should be adopted, regardless of any
| expense at all in reason, the plan Of judge
| DAVIS seems too enormously costly in pro-
portion TO its merits. This plan involves
the creation of nine separate eoHrts OF ap.
| peal; one for each of the circuits
into which the United States are now
divided, and designates Boston, New
York, Philadelphia, Richmond, Cincin-
natl. Chicago, New Orleans, St. Louis and
San Francisco as the points at which they
are to be held. 1t provides six judge
for each of these courts, namely: one Su-
preme Court justice, three circuit judges and
two district judges, and, nevertheless, con-
tinues the circuit and district courts now es-
tablished. The appointment of 80 many adj
ditional judges upon the creation of these
nine courts, with their requisite marshals,
clerks, bailifis, etc, must necessarily increase
the appropriation for judicial purposes m any
times the usual sum. The chief objection,
however, urged by the opponents OF this
plan is its tendency to deviate from uniform
ity in the Interpretation of the laws. 1t is
clsimed, with apparent reason, that these
nine courts, so widely separated, would inev-
itably antagonize each other in their judy
ments, thereby producing discord and dlssat-
isfaction. Altogether, the plan is very OBJ
jectionsble in many features, besides being
cumbersome, unwieldly and extravagant.
Warnings bill simply proposes the subdi-
vision OF the Supreme Court itself into three
sections, to be presided over respectively
by the chief Justice and two associate
chief justices, to be designated by
the President. Each section will, there
fore, be composed OF chief justice and two
associate justices, and to each is to be as
signed las near n may be an equal amount
OF the business which is ready for argument
upon the docket of the court, but in such
manner that, as nearly as possible, all equity
cases shall be assigned to one division, com
mon-law causes to the second division, and
all admiralty and revenue causes, and causes
in which the government of the United States
is directly or indirectly party, 10 the re-
manning division; but when the record re-.
quires a construction of the constitution of
the United States, or treaty Herewith, and
also all causes brought on a writ OF error
from the Supreme Court OF any State, the
same shall be considered by the court in gen.
eral session." The bill provides that the
clerk and marshal of the Supreme Court
shall attend, in person, that division pre-
sided ever by the chief justice, and shall
appoint deputies to attend the other two d.
visions respectively, and the pay OF these
deputies, with incidental expenses, APP
pears to be the only additional cost
to be incurred by the adoption
of this simple plan which seems so well cal
problem. When this bill was
first presented, hasty advocates of other
plans coutended that its design was uncou-
claiming that while that in
strument provided for but one Supreme
Court, the bill virtually converted that one
strained to recede from that position by the
opinion Of many of the most learned LAWYERS
of the land The constitution provides for
one Supreme Court and "such inferior courts
as Congress may from time to time establish
A careful perusal OF the bill will show the
- Os.<ve ueUIsIOns
are 10 be final. 1t Is certain that Congress
can in no manner interfere with the original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but it Is
equally certain that it can modify, abridge,
Or even abrogate its appellate jurisdiction.
II Congress can assign justices to circuit
iuty, or, az Judge Davis proposes, 10 his
nine newly created courts, why may it not
assign them to such duty, distinct from their
offices in general session, as Manning pro-
poses? The merits of the bill are thus set
orth by a writer in the New York Hsrvld:
The advantages of this plan are mainly that 1t |
;reates no new judges, no substantially distinct |
Ind separate COURTS that it employs the judicial |
gencies now In existence; that 1t Is simpler and |
more economical than any other; that il will |
nable the Supreme Court TO clear its own docket |
n brief time, and that when il has cleared it, It
nay, without difficulty, return to the present |
within reasonable limits, and thereafter keep it |
within control II new courts are created on the |
Davis plan they will be entitled to permanency
ven If they do not obtain 1t, for we venture the |
Prediction that even If the bill becomes a law and
hese IN ermed1ate courts are established through
ut the country, the experiment will be found no
more satisfactory than that under which the
Midnight Judges of John Adams were ap-
ointed. The plan Of the Manning bill is such
hat II the accumulation of business which il is
Intended to meet should be- in course of time |
reduced by it as to render the continuance of
ne agency unnecessary, the arrangement can
g permitted without difficulty, to fall
ITO allegiance until again needed. Mo cover |
has the advantage over other plans and systems |
I tnsuring uniformity of decision through the |
onstant consultation of the judges with each !
Their" Those desiring further insight into the
'erits OF the bill, which, though full and perfect
all its details, is remarkably short and concise
view OF the intricacies of the subject can read
y obtain a copy. 1t is to be hoped that il will
ecome law, as a great good to the country and
monument to Colonel Manning's faithful la
or and conspicuous genius in legislatiDg for the
)mmon veal