The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-08-30

tai issecured, leaving the State great
bills OF cost to pay, and lessening the
terrors OF the law to evil-doers. APP
| pesls are allowed on the flimsiest and
most absurdly technical grounds, de-
laying the administration of justice,
piling up costs, eating up estates, dis
gushing the public with the courts and
working untold hardships upon the
litigants and people at large. Protest
and criticism have been repeatedly
leveled against the abuse, but without
effect, so far. If the attention given
the matter at this time shall result in
a reform in the premises, the fact will
be generally hailed with extreme sat,
isfaction.
The report of this eminent commit
tee hints at remedy, but it is almost
impossible for lawyers TO correct evils
That have grown up from their long
time customs and practice, and are al
most part of the profession. The
more eminent the lawyer, generally
tho greater devotion to technicaltios
and revlslons. Hence, these two
stumbling blocks to speedy d!sposi-
ton OF court business, technicalities
and appeals, do not find in MEssRs.
FIELD and DILLON the severest of crit
les. They do say this much, however:
"No form or proceeding should be
fq M ts.
ascertain or preserve the rights Of the
parties, no form or proceeding that
cannot be understood by either party.
none that Causes needless delay, or
needless EXPENSE"
The causes which have produced
this abominable delay, and crowded
the dockets, are several. The lawyers
who take advantage of all the twists
and turns In the statutes, are partly
to blame, and the lawmakers who
pass the statutes are partly to blame,
while tho courts that halt and argue
over, and give effect to the far-fetched
and technical positions OF attorneys,
and neglect the equities OF the case,
are, perhaps, more directly to blame
than any Others. The practice hes
grown to DO an obstacle to speedy de-
termination OF law business, rather
than stimulus or means toward it,
and no help can be expected from
reform of methods by the legal pro-
fession until the statutes are
changed and the courts are
compelled by popular opinion TO
expedite business and try cases
on their merits alone. And yet the
must DO applied, even if 80.
roic remedies are to be resorted to.
Two or three styles of treatment
present themselves. The first is re-
form by the bar, whereby they will
bend their energies to expedite, rather
than retard, proceedings in the courts.
This, however, is but a slim hope.
The longer the litigation the better
The fee, and, "human nature is human
nature" Another plan ia to increase
The number OF judges and courts, and
thus, by dividing the labor, expedite
.he work. The objection here is the
,ostliuess OF the remedy, and tho ad-
iitlonal complication in the machin-
Dry. The third, and, Ss 1t seems to ug,
The best and most practical means Of
meeting the difficulty, is to
simplify the practice by stat
lite, lessen tho causes for con.
inuances, for new trials and appeals,
md confer greater final Jurisdiction
lpon the subordinate courts. Legis-
stors will not, cannot resist an over
popular demand ia this di- |
Iection. If there is a plain statute
allowing but one cause for contiuu-
snoe, new trial, or appeal, where there
'Te now two, the chances for delay arc
esssned or removed by JUS one b If.
Until public sentiment becomes strong
enough to create popular demand to-
hese reforms, 1t may be confidently
stated that nothing will DO done, but
whom once the people speak forth
boldly and In no uncertain tones, the
legislative bodies will act, and the
lurtiul evil OF "the laws delay" be-
satisfactorily corrected.