The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-02-16

tbst the Bench ard Bar OF the State would
prefer the Appellate Court, even though IL
be a single one only. 70 a Commission. Auy-
thing tina. tends 10 destroy or impair the
unihcation Of the Court of last resort
must. in the same ratio. tsnd
to destroy or impair ths harmony
Of its decisions, and thereby under.
mine that confidence and respect which
onght and otherwise would be entertained
for the decisions of the Supreme Court.
The Appellate Court, in either form, will
greatly remedy this evil. OF all the evils
in the administration OF justice, none Is
more 10 be dreaded and deplored than de-
lay; no evil more effectually ssps the foun-
dalton OF all confidence and respect for Law
and for courts. than that OF unreasonable
delay; where it arises from defects in the
judicial system, 1t entails ruinous expense,
SO that it may be said with some show of
fsirnee, that the Legislature that fails to
apply the remedy is responsible tor VIOLA
ton OF the provision OF the Constitution
above quoted, which commands them 10
provide for the administration Of justice,
freely and without purchase" While il
msy be Justly said the Commission has done
much to relieve the delay cOnseq aent
upon the overcrowded condition OF
The Supreme Court docket, it is
conceived the best remedy for that is to so
legislate as to prevent that docket from be-
ing incumbered by that vast number OF
causes involving sums so small and insig-
Dlfoant that the contending parties ought
to be content with the decisions OF the trial
court and the Court of Appeals thereon. The
amount ought to be so fixed that in the fu-
ture 1t would prevent at least two-thirds of
the causes that now reach the Supreme
Court from ever getting there, and in addi-
ton 10 this the Commission ought to bs CON
tinued long enough for the Supreme Court
to catch up. There are many arguments IN
IA ri hnf n nf ma mn ne
the Court OF Appeals should be one or sew
eTal. IL we are correct in saying the new
systeTn should take out two thirds of the
busiD' IS that now encumbers the Supreme
Courl docket il will follow that oHe Court
Of AZ - sls will wholly fail TO accomplish
the ct in view. IL the new system shall
so re llate the appellate practice. that not
more nan one-third OF the number of causes
that now cucumber the Supreme Court
docket shall ever reach there again, the
Appellate Court must have at least three
tOuTths, IL not four hfths as much business
as the Supreme Court now has il any ap-
peels are q. all allowed from the Appellate
Court 10 the Supreme Court. And without
such appeals within certain limits as 90
amount the system would be imperfect and
Of doc bHul constitUuonality. The Objecti IN
that enc Court OF Appeals might decide
the same question differently from another
is 20 greater than that one Circuit Court
may decide differently from another. This
decision of q Circuit Court "a some authority
uDappealed from, and is some evidence of
what tbs law is on this given point. Then,
by the increased facilities tho new system
would afford the Supreme Court time for
that careful and painstaking consideration
which ought to be devoted to the establish
usnt Of precedeBts, as well as the deternin-
alton of the rights of the parties. and would
greatly aid the Appellate Courts in establish
ing uniformity OF decision. So oral argu.
nenis in the Appellate Courts in all cases as
suggested by your correspondent. would
greatly tend TO expedite the bust
ness of those c0ur,s, as we'll IS
TO aid in uniformity of decis-
ion. And if oral arguments are to be al
owed il would be inpracticsble for Oh
Court to hear them and co anything else. 1t
is to be hoped that Democratic Legislature
will not be penny wise and pound foolish
in this matter. There is no subject more
imperstively demanding the attention of the
Legislature than this. And the fact that
the demand that ''iustice be administered
freely aud without purchase, completely and
without denial. speedily and without de-.
lay" is not complied with, and can not be
CONF lied with under existing laws owing to
the CREST increase in wealth and population,
viii be complete justification for any in
creased public expense resulting from the
establishment of several Courts of Appeal.
MCCABE.