Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1882-10-07
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
tFrom the Glasgow Journal. ]


The last legislature of Missouri in its
regular session agreed to submit to the
voters of Missouri. constitutional
amendment which was designed to re-
live the supreme court and help It to
clear its docket. The importance of
this question most assuredly demands u
very careful consideration. The crowd
ed condition of the supreme court dock
Ell. placing it several years behind " here
it ought to be, leads to practical deni.
al OF justice in many cases. Consequent
Dy the amendment ought not to be re-
jected except for good reasons. We be-
lieve there are good reasons for
rejecting it and shall endeavor TO give
them. In the first place the amend-
ment would give to the st. L ,uls court
OF appeals final appellate Jurisdiction
in all civil causes arising in the city OF
st. LOUIS; and as the bar assoc alton OF
st. Louis expresses it 1--WE asss IT that
no tribunal OF hnal appellate jurisdic.
ton over the litigation OF municipal
community such az the city OF st. Louis.
should be- composed exclusively Ut
judges " no are citizens OF tnat commu.
nifty. An independent, disiuterested
judiciary is Que Of the corner-stoues OF
o
administration OF JUSTICE" In the
divide the supreme court into two parts
-one the criminal side and the other
the civil side-each division to consist
OF three judges, and in either of which
divisions, q majority (oniy two judges
can render y decisiOn. This shows
then, that no matter how vitality import
ant y case may be TO the people OF the
state, and no matter how important it
may be to private individuals. the voice
OF simply too judges out OF the supreme
court OF sic. can decide it. Another
section provides iOr rchearing III GER
tain cases, but this refers to the criminal
side of the court, aud even this is, true
only when there is conflict with some
decision Ot the old court or the civil
side. Moreover the right To dc, ,erminv
the question OF reheHring, Is vested In
pends upon the judgment OF one man;
aud il u rehearing is grantet. IT, makes
tue case tried three tlmes-tirst hy the
proper side of the court, next by the
chief justice on an application for re-
baa.c. Is this saving OF time aud
naturally arise q Jealousy between the
two divisions oi the supreme ccurt. which
in time would do more TO bring our iu-
dietary IN disrepute than any delay
could possibly do. And while It may
be said that rejecting this amendment
will postpone reliet which 10 impera-
lively demanded. 1t may with equal
truth be said that commission for tenn
porary reliet could be appointed and
then abolished as soon as it ceased to
be necessary; and even if that were not
true. 1t would be infinitely better for
individuals and for the commonwealth
to submit temporarily to tho CALLING in
convenience Of delay. rather than en-
body in our constitution an idea false
and hurtfnl, which If once adopted will
prove veritabfe ''old man OF the sea-"
The bar association oi st. Lnuis has
carefully considered the matter from
every point OF view. and alter mature
/ deliberation, they feel constrained 10
decide that 'this association ought to
recommend to the people of the state
the rejection of the proposed amend.
nsent. We believe that 1t is a meas
are ti'aught Nth coil; that 1t soill not
reliece the supreme court; that its en-
| forcemsnt ,O0uld bring the aeln,i,,is.
trdtion of justice into merited disre.
pute; and that 1t aoould lead to a more
int0lerabte denial Of justice to the
people Of thts state than they noW
suffer-"
Under these circumstances we believe
it behoOves every voter IN the state of
Missouri to 60 the polls at tho next
election, aud on the constitutional
amendment to relieve (P) the supreme
court vote no.