New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-01-23
PRICE FOUR CENTS.
THE SUPREME COURT.
HOW IT'S WORK MIGHT BE PUSHED.
fL@Ns ALRFADY NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. o

I
the number of cases is rapidly increasing Besides,
one or two of the judges have been disabled from
active work on the bench for long time The con
sequence mas been that important questions have to
DC delayed for many months before they can be
| heard, and then they are necessarily disposed Of
| hsstiiy and without opportunity for proper nvest-
CATION and deberation by the judges.
lhcre have been several propositions intended TO
rellevc this difficulty. some Of which will proba-
bly, soon be brought before Congress. One
OF these Is to increase the number
ofJudges from nine to fifteen or twenty This larger
court would sit in exactly the same manner as the
present one does. The advantage claimed for tho
proposed plan is that more judges could be engaged
In writing opinions in different cases at tho sams
time, and therefore delibcration and care
could be given to each opinion. Another PROPOSE
tion has been to separate enlarged court. to 10
composed of twenty judges into three divisions.
This would virtually make three courts of cOOrdi-
nate jurisdiction. Each would sit IN turn while the
members OF the other two were IN consultation or
engaged IN writing opinions. Thus. il is asserted
one court would constantly be in session, and at
the samo time the work of deciding causes would
on;inually be going on third
plan has been proposed that 4. in
tended to meet the PRINCIPAL objection made to the
second one. namely that the decisions of the differ
ent branches of the court would not he in harmony
with each other This proposition il to have the
three divisions of the court entirely independent Of
each other and to give them jurisdiction over
entirely different classes of litigation. For in
stance, one branch might cOnstruc admiralty Jaw;
another the law of patents while the third hal
jurisdiction of ell other matters.
Each of these plans has been proposed and con-
siderably discussed. Not of them, however, sp-
pears to be approved by the most eminent lawyers
of this city. and they urge very strong objections
q Of .lp hava hasn
talked with on the subject by a TRIBUNE reporter,
not only stated their objections to these PROPOSE
lions, bat also gave their ideas the best way to
remedy the difficulties that all admit TO exist under
the present system.
JUDGE DAvIS'S COMMENTS.
Judge Noah Davis the Presiding Justice
of the Supreme Court for this department
said that he thought abundant relief
could be secured to the Supreme Court OF tho
United States without an increas Of the judges Of
the court, or at most with an increase not exceed
ing two judges
80 far" ho continued, "as the proposed increase
Of Judges LOOKS 10 the organization of coordinate
and independent tribunals having ultimate juris-
detinn over the whole or distinct portions OF tho
business the scheme is OF doubtful cons,ifutonaliy
The Constitution declares that there shall he ono
Supreme Court and provides for such inferior
courts Congress shall deem necessary. This
decsratOnis is a limitation upon the powers of Con-
gress SO far as II relates to the Supreme Court itself.
the increase Of the number of judges TO twenty
one or any Ike number would make the court Alto
gcthcr too unwleldy and expensive. II that number
sat together as single court there would be loss
of individual responsibility. which would de-
tract from the character and dignity Of the positi0a
Nothing would be gained III the rapidl;y of trans
acting business. Time would be wasted in discus
Sions; in the conflicting OF opinions, and useless
controversies. Everyone who has had judicial ox-
perencc knows that 1t Is more dinicul to reach sat-
isfactory conclusions and unanimlty Of opinion in
large bodies than in smaller. II the increased
judges are to be divided into separate and inde-
pendent courts theu the scheme Is open COnsti-
tutonal obj ctOns, besides being an unnecessary
step, sure IN time TO deTogate largely from the bigh
character of the court.
What should be done, as II seems to me, is 10
adopt course that will largely relieve the court
from me pressure OF tLo increasing business add
enable it, with greater facility, to dispatch the pres
ent calendar. This can be done by providing that
five of the present judges shall constitute quorum
of the court of which when but five sitting, the
concurrence of three only of the judges shall be-
necessary 10 pronounce Judgment; that the Chief
Justice except when disabled from any cause, in
which case the senior iusice present shall pre-
slde with four of the niue justices, shall sit for the
hearing of arguments; that at the expiration Of
each fortnight ,or other perioJ the four sitting
judges shall SIT III consultation TO dispose o.! the
cases heard by them; and the other four justices
shall sit with the Chief Justice To hear arguments
who at the end o the same period shall sit in con
sultaton, while the O!her four return TO the court
In banc: The four justices thus sitting in consuta-
ton will be able 10 decide by Concurrence of
three the great bulk Of the cases heard by them. bat
where they are divided the Cbict-jusice will take
part in the decision, and his voice viii constitute
thus made to be handed down with tho opinions
at such times as the Court may fix upon, without
reading the same III open court.
Tho ADVANTAGES of this mode OF doing the bnsi-
will be 10 leave the Chi, f-Jnstce Al liberty TO
preside in banc at all times when able,
part in the consultations except on an
equal division of the Justice sitting III consulta-
ton; in which case their conflicting opinions viii
be submitted TO him, and he having heard the
gumcnt can decide the question with propricty and
without very great labor on his part. Tn" business
of disposing OF the present calendar thus be dis
patched with accelerated rapidlty The time now
wasted III rea ling opinions III open court from the
bench viii be saved and arguments Will bc short
ened.
Provision should be made that in all grave Con-
stltutlOnal questions and such other questions as
seem to the Chief-JustIce of sufficient magnitude
TO require it, he shall call upon all the judges TO sit
and hear the arguments and In such a minority
all present should be necessary to pronounce tho
Judgment.
yolve All increase of Judges but an addition of one
or two might be made 10 guard a9alns. the cOntln-
gency of disability If two were added the court
sitting to hear argument might consist of five or
seven, majority OF course being required TO pro-
nOunce Judgment
present calendar with remarkable dispatch II means
to prevent ls too rapid increase also provided.
To do this II seems to me the better course VII be
to divide the whole OF the States and Territories
into four departments, and III each department to
create IN appellate tribunal 10 consist OF chief
Justice and associate justices, 10 sit at stated
terms and at convenient places in each department.,
and primarily hear all appeals from the several Fed
eral courts. From these appellate courts an ap-
peal should lie 10 the Supreme Court only lncaSes IN
yOlying amounts exceeding fixed sum lSay
10000 aud such cases as the appellate court
should certify 10 involve constitutional questions
or due ,ti0ns upon which conflicting decisions nave
been made IN the appellate depart mental Courts;
or In questions OF such magnitude and Importance
TO the puUlc to require the consideration ot ihe
court of last resort 1t is safe TO say that these
deulrtncutal courts would diminish appeals 10 tho
Supreme Court from onc-hali TO two-thirds, and
tGe result would be that the present supreme
Conrt after Kidding itself OF It's pre- ent calendar,
would be ablc to handle the appeals made 10 il even
in the present way. with ease aud rapidity. Tho
Lila d. d nrlll u