Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-04-22
NEEDED CHANGES.

The people of Montana are vigorously
urging the addition of another District
Judge for that Territory, and there seems
to be good reason for believing that the
effort will be successful The Senate Ju-
dietary Committee has reported favor
ably bill, the provisions OF which are
as follows:
Sec. 1. Hereafter the Supreme Court of
Montana shall consist of Chief Justice and
three Associate Judges, three of whom shall
constitute quorum, to hold Office for four
years, and until their successors be appointed
and qualified, shall hold term annually Mt
the seat of government of said Territory,
provided, however, no Justice shall act as
member of the Supreme Court of Montana
in any action or proceedings brought to such
court by writ of error, bill of exceptions, or
decree rendered by him as Judge of n Dis
trict Court.
Sec. 2. That said Territory shall be di-
vided into four judicial districts, and dis
trict court shall be held in each by one of
the justices at such time and place as may
be prescribed by law
Sec 3. That all offenses committed be-
fore the passage of this act shall be prose-
cuted and tried and determined in the same
manner and with the same effect as if this
act had not been passed.
The Mountain, in reviewing the
changes contemplated in this bill, says
and comments as follows "The change
from the present practice which this
bill comtemplates is, first, to in
crease the number OF judicial districts
and judges from three to four. To show
the need of this it is only necessary to call
attention to the overworked condition of
the Territorial judiciary, which often de-
lays the adjudication OF important suits
and also does away sometimes with the
deliberate consideration which they are
entitled to. The most important point,
however, is that it debars an Associate
Justice from taking part in the Supreme
Court consideration OF case upon which
he has passed opinion in the District
Court. Heretofore District Court Judge
had as much say in Il case of this kind
before the Supreme Court as either OF his
two colleagues, which was manifestly i'm
proper"
The same argument applies with still
greater force to Utah, where the popula-
ton is greater and the court work more
than correspondingly extensive and
laborious. There is no Territory in the
United States where there are so many
cases tried or where the Judges are so
severely worked as in this. The peculiar
local institution breeds an amount of
criminal business which keeps the courts
almost constantly employed to the great
inconvenience, cost and general detri
ment OF civil litigants. The constant and
almost uniform lengthening of the civil
calendars is abundant evidence of the
necessity for additional judicial force,
apart from the importance of having an
Appellate Court exclusive of the Judge
who presides at the original hearing,
which is of itself sufficient to warrant the
increase. The Montana bill appears to
be in favorable position for passage, and
there is no reason why Utahs demand
should not be as favorably considered.
Why not include this Territory in the
same Act? 1t would necessitate only the
addition OF Il few words, and two or three
changes from singular to plural, which
would involve no complications, while it
would effect double purpose. The
amendments could be made in the SEN
ate without delaying the regular course
of the bill, and would probably increase
rather than diminish the chances for its
passage. 1t is not probable that Delegate
Caine would take any steps to facilitate
this matter, but proper representations
from other sources would doubtless effect
the desired purpose.