, 1889-07-25

the substitute for section in print.
The motion to suspend the rule was
lost and the report on section was laid
over TO be printed. The motion to go
into committee of the whole pre-
vailed.and the president surrendered the
chair to Mr.. Cosgrove.
Sections Of the judicial article was
taken up and read, stating the jurisdic-
tion and powers of the supreme court.
Mr.. Turner moved to amend so that
the appellate jurisdiction should cover
all cases.
Mr.. Crowley moved to further amend
by using the words factions and pro-
ceedings' instead of "cases."
MIR. Turner accepted the amendment
and his motion was then adopted. Mr..
Turner moved the adoption of the sec
ton.
j. q. Moore moved to amend'by strik-
ing out the whole clause limiting the
appellate jurisdiction TO amounts not eS-
ceeding 500. In support of his motion
he had read telegram from f. e..
Graves of Spokane protesting against
this limiting clause. Mr.. Moore argued
that just rs important principles of law
were often involved in small casesas in
large ones, and for the purpose Of prompt
settlement Of the'points of law, litigants
should be allowed tocome in.
Mr.. Browne moved to further amend
by increasing the limit from $200to $500,
DtlC received no ScCOllu.
Mr.. Griffitts favored Mr.. Moore's mo-
tion, and said he had wished for the
same end In the committee.
Mr.. Dunbar had at first doubted the
advisability Of this.lfmit but was now
IN favor Of it, and should therefore op-
pose the amendment. If small cases
are allowed to go to the supreme court
men of influence and wealth and cor
porations can oppress the poor man by
simply appealing to the supreme court
and making the
LITIGATION so EXPENSIVE
that poor men will practically stop try
ing fol-. their rights in court.
Mr.. Browne sdid this was exactly his
view and the reason of his amendment
lust made. This limit to appeal was In
the interest of the poor man, whoother-
wise would have no remedy in the
courts.
Mr.. Turner differed with his learned
colleagues Of Spokane In the view that
courts are appointed to settle law points.
He thought they were established to de-
eide matters between parties In specific
cases Grave rights Of the people ought
not 10 be settled in unimpoLtant cases.
He thought the limit fixed by the COM
mittee should be adhered TO.
Mr.. Sullivan of Whitman thought the
Limitation worked both ways. Ifthe
rich man managed to win the lower
court the poor man. was prevented from
having another trial, and he had TO pay
the costs. The rule should be 80 ar
ranged that numerous and petty law
suits would be suppressed. Hcpreferrcd,
however, n 800 limit.
Mr.. Dyer moved toIamend by raising
the limit TO 5000.
Mr.. Stiles thought that motion out of
order, and explained why, but the chair
thought not, as he was unable TO follow
the logic of the gcntlemans reasoning.
Mr.. Hoyt offered substitute for the
whole section, viz: "rhe supreme
court shall haye such Jurisdiction as
shall be prescribed by law"
of order, Mr. Dyer's motion being an
amendment to an amendment, which
was the limit.
Mr.. Dyer briefly argued in favor OF
raising the limit
Mr.. Allen renewed the point of order
raised by Mr.. stiles, but was equally un-
successful In impressing the chair with
the validity of the point raised.
Mr.. Reed of Olympia tried it, and with
better success, stating that tho first
motion before the committee was Mr..
Moore's, which proposed to strike out
several lines. Now came Mr.. Dyer with
motion TO amend the same thing in
the lines thus proposed to he stricken
out That was clearly not the proper
amendment to the first amendment.
Overs motion out of order.
Mr.. Allen favored striking out the lin
itation and letting all cases be
OPEN TO APPEAL
on the ground that ". a.pcssonwss an