Arizona weekly citizen., 1882-10-29

l -ut appeal IS utltSadrllE controlled
 by the act of the judge from whose declssion the appeal was taken. II
 there was fourth judge a determina-
 ton could be arrived at, in every case.
 without the act of the judge of the
 Court from whence the appeal came.
 With these two comparatively simple
 additions to our present system the
 needs Tn this direction, would be suffi-
 cisntly provided for not only for the
 present. but doubtless for such time as
 Arizona will remain a Territory.
 c. c. STEPHENS, EsQ.
 Among the many reforms imperative
 ly demanded by the growing needs of
 our Territory, the most prominent IS a
 reform of our inadequate iudicIal sys-
 tenn. As fair illustration of the man.
 ner in which our present system works. we have in this county two terms of | the District Court in year, each term | lasting about slx weeks. Nearly all of | both terms Is occupied in the trial of | criminal causes. As an inevitable result the civil calender, which Is not only
 now large, but constantly increasing, IS practically postponed indefinitely The laws delays have become interminable and intolerable, and justice as a con- sequence goes cheated.
 The remedy Is simple and feasible. Let the Legislature invest the Probate Courts with all the appellate iurlsdic- tiOn of the Justices Courts: confer upon them all original criminal jurisdiction now exercised by the District Court, ex- cept murder and treason; also jurisdic- tlon m special -eedings and the civil actions of for, e entry and nuisance The District Court would thus be re- heyed of vast mass of work and could devote it's tune to the more important character of litigation. The Probate Courts should be kept in session con- stantly, and the District Court should have four terms per year instead of two terms as now.
 This Is substantially the California system before the adoption of the Codes in that State, and 1t vas found amply adequate to the wants of the people.
 Other plans of judiciary reform are suggested to my mind and may be pro- posed by others; but this plan has the unqualified sanction of thirty years successful experience where litigation was great lu amount and important in character. C. c. STEPHENS.
 JUDGE JOHN HAYNES.
 Replying very briefly 10 your request for my views as to what changes f any are needed in our judicial system, l would say, that it seems to be conceded by all who have given the subject any attention, that some change IS needed, 1 and should be promptly made.
 Two prOmInen. defects Tn the present | system are, first, an insufficient number | of judges tO promptly dispose Cf the | business which is already large and rap idly increasing, and, second, our Su- l preme Court Is composed of the same | judges who try all the cases in the Dis trict Courts, which necessitates the judges sitting iu review on theIr own decisions. or standing aside, leave the Court to consist of bat two members, which would require the unanimous concurrent of the Court to accomplish reversal.
 Besides, ln the next or OtLer causes, 1 one of the two judges who constituted ! the Court Tn the preceding case. must stand aside, ard his decisions come Tn re- | I ! reversals must of neces- sity be few, and the records of our Su- preme Court proves such to be the fact This should not be attributed tO dishOu- esty in the judges. It IS the necessary and inevitable result of that pride of opinion which all professional men have ln greater or less degree, If We are tO suppose that a judge sits in review upon his own decisions, and a natural defer ence to an associate who has decided | the case, even when he retIres during its consideration n Supreme Court, vii have its influence
 Both these evils would be greati, re- 1uced by the creation of an additional l district by act of Congress and the ap- pointment of an additional judge. thus the force for the District | Court work, and enabling three judges, instead of two. to sit in each ease in Su- Dreme COur'.
 While this would be great benefit ! and cost the Territory nothing, It does a not fully meet Our wants. The Emitted i States business Jas 1t is called which must be done by Federal judges, IS in- |. 'reasing, and that, with the Supreme
 ourt business, will soon be about all f, hat should be required Of thIee judges. ,
 At present there is not sufficient time . Or the consideration of cases heard in ( Supreme Court, and the proper n of opinions. would suggest the creation of Courts O be known as Superior Courts, having V general original jurisdiction and I he same appellate jurisdiction as the il resent District Courts. One, two, or ] nore counties, according to wealth and b ,1siness, could be united in one dis ret, and, If thought best. 1t might be 2 eft to the Boards of Supervisors or to ., opular vote Ill the several counties or istricts, whether they adopt the sys- T em, or when it should be adopted. d Under this system, while not interfer- T. ng with the jurisdiction of the present e District Courts, wherever the new sys- s' sm was adopted, 1t would practically elive the Justices of the Supreme ', ourt from District Court duty, except s. s to United States business, and give ot lem ample time for the proper dIs- ,i harge of their duties as a Supre me al Ourt ST At present there ar not more than q lree counties that could afford to adopt County Court system and pay a salary --. lat would secure a competent judge; It whenever that becomes practicable, could be accomplished by simply add ig to the Superior Court the iurisdic- ' on now vested ID ithe Probate Courts n
 JOHN HAYNES. el