The Indianapolis journal., 1885-01-23


it practicable to accomplish this reform.
That section of the Constitution was
accordingly amended to that end,
and it was expressly-enjoined upon the
committee that the amendment should be so
framed as that Supreme Court commission, or
the increase Of the number of judges, should not
be possible and it is matter of history that the
amended section does not authorize the commits
sion any more than the Constitution without
amendment did.
The history of the amendment of the Constitu-
ton. and the attempt to adopt the same. need
not be repeated.
Judge Frasier who was at the session of 1879,
appointed on the code commission and was en-
gagged in the preparation of the Revision of 1881,
was also president of the Bar Association. After
the Supreme court had declared the adoption Of
the amendment to the Constitution inoperatlve.
he corresponded extensively with members CT
the bar in different parts of the State, to try to
devise means whereby the accumulated business
of the Supreme Court could be disposed OF. 1t
was again the unanimous voice that there was
no remedy but through an amendment OF the
Constitution.
At the annual meeting of the Bar Association.
November, 1880, and at one or more adjourned
meetings afterward,. the bill, providing for the
re submission of the constitutional amendment
to the people, was prepared by Judge Iaylor,
the chairman of committee Of the Bar Asso-
citation, and, with the concurrence OF the Code
commission, was promptly passed by the Legls-
iature; it provided for going into force lmmedl-
| ately, so that the necessary legislation TO re-
lieve the Supreme Court might be had at the
session of 1881.
After the adoption of the constitutional
amendments bill was prepared by Judge
Frasier, dividing the State into three Appellate
Court districts, and providing for the election OF
three judges in each district establishing an in
| termediate Appellate Court, and defining its
| jurisdiction. Only the place at which the same
| should be established was left blank. This bill
| was submitted to the criticism and approval OF
| the Code commission, the leading officers and
| members of the Bar Association throughout the
| State, and, by a member of the Code
| commission. placed in the hands of one Of the
| leaders Of the Senate, and was expected to be
| passed at that session of the Legislature. Il
was never acted upon, but, just before the ad
| journment of the Legislature, the act establish
| ing the Supreme Court commission was passed
to the utter astonishment of the whole bar o1
| the State.
| We have no criticism upon the personale Of
| the commission, but have always regarded the
| act, as have the whole bar, as an unconstltu
tional, illegal contrivance, tolerated either by
| the Supreme Court itself, or the bar, or the peo
| pie, only ex necessitati rel 1t was probably be
| cause the Legislature could not agree upon any
bill for the establishment of a court, and only
| in the desperation of the Supreme Court for hell
| that this temporary expedient was resorted to
| There were some dark, vague rumors of the de
signs of some ambitious legislators, but it is in
consequential what motive prompted the Legis
/
1t was expected that the intermediate appellat,
| court would have been established at the session
| OF 1883 Why it was not done, we cannot tell
| The truth is sessions are 30 short there il
not time for the maturing of reformatory legis
| lation. 1t is hoped however, that, with tht
hint of the Governor and the necessities of tht
| case, as seen by the profession and by the peo
| pie, and as must be apparent to the Legislature
it will act promptly at the present session
Mere temporary expedients always make things
arH fhn 10 han o1ch
to be done with deliberation, and all the caution
and wisdom that can be brought to bear, to have
| the new court meet the wants Of the people, 81
| that the courts may be harmonious, and grow
into system, and, with such curative amend
ments as may from time to time bt
suggested by experience, permanently remedy
| the defects in our present system, which have
| given us so much trouble. But what
| ever is done must be done promptly
| We see bill has already been introduced into
! the Senate, establishing an intermediate cour
| composed of five judges. We submit that this
| Is not what is needed We want more than one
court, and we want only three judges, who shall
| hear oral argument who shall sit in conaulta
ton until the case is decided before an opinion
| is written: who shall work together, and thereby
| unity their decisions and prevent appeals to the
Supreme Court Three first-class lawyers, with
a proper hearing consideration and examination
| OF record, can decide case as well as FIVE
seven or nine: and three courts, of three judge;
each, e~lll otnf9Te thAH twice the work of one o.
five judges, and perform it better. We want ou1
| appellate judicial methods in Indiana reformed
| and we do not know better method of reform
| ing them than the establishment of such cour
as was contemplated in the bill of Judge Fraser
reported from the code commission to the Leg
| slature of 1881.
In the length of an ordinary newspaper article
it is not practicable to give reasons at large fol
| preferences for this system. 1t is upon the same
principle as the system adopted in Illinois, which
| works admirably, resulting in lessening litiga
tion and in the prompt disposition of causes, very
satisfactorily botb to the people, the courts
themselves, and the profession
We are aware that it will be difficult for the
Legislature to fix upon the locations OF the courts
| in different parts of the State, but that can be
done by fixing the districts and having the place
for holding the courts fixed by a commission As
to the expense of court-houses and libraries
provision for levying the necessary taxes by 10
cal boards of commissioners, and making the
necessary expenditures, upon condition of the
location of the courts will easily obviate all diff
| ficulty on that score ASA IGLEHART.
| EVANSVILLE, Jan. 20, 1885.