Mexico weekly ledger. (Mexico, Mo.) 1855-1956, 1882-11-02
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Theiext Of the constitutional amend

election, in regard to the future Or
ganization of our supreme court, is
quite lengthy, but the following SYM
opsis Of it wiH give tie readers of the
LEDGER fair idea of its provisions:
) gSEcTIoN /, lessons the snumber Of
judges taking cognizance Of appeal, !
except in special cases, by dividing
the supreme court into clviland .cfim-
ina1 sides with only three justices to
each, of which two will be quorom.
SEc.2, provides for a rehearing in
hanc, Whenever the criminal side shall
render a decision contrary to the rnl-
ings Of the civil side, or of the court,
as at present constituted. RI
Sec 3, restricts the jurisdiction of
the st. Louis court Of appeals, after
January next, to that city, and makes
its decisions final. except as otherwise
provided for : /, 1 = q s A.S. p ~
SEC. 4, provides for the rehearing
by the supreme court nf such decis-,
ions of the St. Louis court of appeals,
as shall be contrary to those of the
latter, or either side of it. at which
the judges OF both courts, or a ,major-,
ity Of them, shall sit and determine
the action proper to be taken.
SECS. 5, 6, Z, relate to the enforce
ment of the proceeding ones,~ and
among their provisions is q singular
clause, allowing the present judges to
on which side of the court
they are to sit, and providing that in
future elections of justices reference
shall be had to their peculiar capacity
for the side they are to act upon.
1t is quite seldom that a proposed
constitutional amendment has receiv-
ed so little general attention, and
what makes this the more remarkable
is the fact that the one now presented
to popular consideration, if adopted,
will affect an unusually wide range OF
interests. The supreme court is at
least three years behind in its deeis-
ions, despite the efforts of it's judges,
and the injuries arising therefrom are
nearly equal to that of total suspen-
sion of justice. But great as these
are, grave apprehensions are enter
tanned by legal minds whether the
proposed amendment, hastily adopted
by the legislature upon the day of its
submitment under the pressure of a
feeling that something ought to be
done. to expedite final adjudication in
our court of last resort. is. of such a
carefully devised character as. will
furnish litigants needed relief. The
amendment provides for an increased
number of judges, and yet. restricts
trials to lessen tribunals, except in
certain instances, and is calculated
to make specialists, when every JUS
tice of court of last resort should be
man of comprehensive legal attain
ment. In fact, there are more special
lawyers nowadays than formerly, and
it is possible that some of the delay
complained of is to be attributed to
that condition of our bars and courts,
and it is quite probable that the pro-
posed amendment will not enlarge
the legal acumen of our supreme
jurists, and, ON that account, may
turn out to be remedy worse than
the disease it aims to remove.
We had hoped that our Mexico bar
would have given expression to some
opinion Of this amendment, as we
have neither time nor ability to analyze
its provisions and portray their prob.
able consequences to many conditions
of civil and criminal practice. 1t is
well known, however, that the most
important cases for supreme court
decision arise in st. LOUIS, concern
ing whose court of appeals the amend
ment contains such unusual Legislation
as will, if adopted, confnely it to an
extremely limited territory, and i'm
part to our commercial emporium 8
system of adjudication separate and
distinct from other parts of the state,
thereby entrusting to judges residing
at particular city the exclusive and
final application, in certain instances,
OF the laws governing transactions in
it, when local influences, customs and
considerations should never be allow
ed to control IN any way court o1
last resort, or one creating to {
greater or lesser extent, precedent.
to be thereafter widely followed.
Not the least of the objections tt
the proposed amendment is its con
templated ultimate establishment o:
ne less than five sources of final de
clslons. First, the civil side; second
the criminal side third, the court il
banc, and fourth the st. Louis cour
of appeals, and fifth the mixed bencl
composed of the judges Of the su
preme court and the ST Louis cour
of appeals. 1t is easy to anticipat
from such multiplied and complicated
p,aelinery conflicts. Of opinion tina
win bring the whole system into gen
eral contempt.
But perhaps, after all, the creates
defect of this amendment is, that ik
some that have preceded it, it is ais
crude and enters too much into detail
and leaves too little to legislative dis
cretion. 1t seems to be unendurabl
obe obliged to resort to the form
and delays Of Constitutional amend
ments every time the supreme cor.
needs reformation, aud Che little intsl
est taken in the amendment is furthe
evidence of the improperly of com
hitting a measure Of vast importanc