Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-08-10
TIL JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION.

The Assembly committee appointed to in
yestigate the charges of imbe2ility preferred by
Judge David 5. Terry against Chief Justice
Morrison and Associate Justice Sharpstein met
at P. n il the Supreme Court chamber. The
following, printed in pamphlet form was
handed around the room:
ms committee, appointed TO investigate
certain charges, preferred against Justices
Morrison and Sharpstein of the Supreme Court
are DESTROYS of making careful and fair eX-
ANIMATION, not only of these charges, but of
them.
1t may appear that the organization of the
Court Is defective, and in consequence an TN
necessary amount of labor imposed upon them
A condition Of things may be shown TO explain
away the alleged causes Of complaint. They
may be sufferers through unnecessary burdens
imposed upon them, that may be removed by
legislative action. For this reason we have
prepared the following series of questions
winch we desire the witness TO answer in their
order:
l. Have Judges Morrison and sharpstein. for
more than year past, performed a reasonable
amount of work
2. Is the decision of two cases in more than a
wear, by Justice ShaTpstein, q reasonable amount
3. Should man who decides only two cases
Ill more thal year be retained on the bench
!. should he not be retired and his salary Of
SIX thousand dollars year be better applied
thah IN paying at the rate of three thousand
dollars for the decision of single trifling case
d. IS not some degree of physical strength
freedom from disease, etc, essential to clearness
Of mind and power of application necessary TO
the ethcient and proper performance of the ar
duous and trying duties of Supreme Judge?
o. are there not now eight hundred or one
thousand eases pending before the Supreme
:. Is not the work before the Supreme Cont
increasing, and the ability to perform it de-
creaSing?
S. Is it not necessary to have able and CONNIE.
tent Judges 10 dispose OF this growing mass Of
.; VIII not the interests of Iitigants be mate
nan! P[,o!noted by change in the judicial sys-
10. II the other five Judges did no more work
IMAM the TWO under consideration, would not a
depiorable state Of affairs ensue?
II, IS not the department system q failure
ment system
Is. Does not the department system increase
the cost Of litigation
II. Has the Commission apDOfnteI tn ossist tI,a
Court fulfilled expectations in carving on the
business OF the Court more speedily?
. 10. Has not the necessary review or examina
tlon OF the WorH OF the Commission by the Court
caused more delay than was expected
16; Has it not in fact, caused nearly double
work
II. Has not the Commission done more work
than the Court?
Is. Is it not true that, within the past year.
the Judges
10. 1.-THE Commission have proved themselves
elheient and competent, is there objection to
making them members of the Court until the
next election?
20. Are the salaries now paid the Supreme
Judges sufficient to command the services Of an
ADLER class of lawyers?
Il. Are not the Interests of litigants suffarino
al this time?
-. Would it not be important to the interests
OF the state 10 SO organize the Supreme Court as
70 eihclenily and speedily perform the business
%. Are there objections to the reorganization
OF the supreme Court at this time?
- has II not become an Urgent necessitv2
70 Could not the present system of conducting
business III the supreme Court be so changed as
10 greatly facilitate business and occasion less
OF the present ruinous delays, trouble aud ex-
Iense to litigants?
% Is not the present extra session. with COM
ParatlYely lite business to attend TO- better
| time 10 reoTganize the Supreme Court than the
regular session. when there win be more than a
thousand DIS Claiming attention, and a vast
amount of other business?
n What plan of reorganization would YOU
propose?
3. How DO you like the plan of reorganization
proposed in the lule bill, the Davis bill ana
other bills:
20 lit should be thought unwise 10 reorgar-
lie the Court until some future time. would il
not be well 70 continue the inC6pQcitated Judges
IN Office until the close OF their respective terms
acding 70 the Court the Commissioners and two
more able lawyers, these newt Judges to continue
IL oiice, and finally constitute a Court of five
members, and so continue thereafter?
MORRIS Chairman