The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-01-09
SUPREME COURT RELIEF.
The Objections to an intermediate Appel
late Court Cogently Stated.

The Objections to An intermediate Appels
late Court Cogently stated.
To THE EDIToR-Sjr: ] am pleased 10 no.
tice in the columns of THE SENTINEL that the
objections l made soon after this subject was
first discussed have been so generally adopted.
They were (l) the appointment of another com.
mission for three, or four years, and % in the
interim amend the constitution, by increasing
the number OF supreme judges to not less than
five and not more than eleven judges. Also,
as it is not likely that democratic assembly
would create five such Offices TO be filed with
or by republicans, have the legislature select
the commissioners.
There have been some objections made 10
this plan, but / think all such can be readily
answered. 1t is thought that most of the OBJ
iectiOns arise from the desire of many to obtain
place, or Of some locality which may have or
desire to have a supreme court established in
its midst. OF course many of the large cities
out of indianapolis would favor such plan;
that is Of having several appellate courts hold
ing their sessions in their particular locality.
To have such appellate courts thus sitting in
different parts of the state would certainly
necessitate the enaction of from nine to fifteen
more judicial officers place 70 hold such
courts, and clerk, sheriff, reporter and other
officers and paraphernalia OF such courts. Thus
would have either four or six courts with
more than double the expense, and which
not only would produce confusion with con-
hicting decisions on the same questions, with
a change IN our judiciary system which we all are
accustomed TO, it would become unpopular
with the litigants and attorneys who would be
either compelled 10 submit 70 the judgment OF
such appellate court as hnal, or At greater eE-
pense IN some cases as suggested 10 again ap-
peal the case to the supreme court.
With 1he supreme court docket cleaned up
for the reception Of a court composed of only
seven members and the amendment hereinafter
mentioned adopted, many attorneys believe It
would be several years before IL would again be
be clOgged a. 1t now Is. Even with four extra
judges the additional expense would be $1,000,
but with any appellate system suggested, even
with the smallest of three courts with only
three Judges 70 each, with like salary as the
present supreme judges, which IS certainly
small enough, would make the salaries alone
$4,000, 10 say nothing OF the other ohlcers ana
incidents of such courts as stated above.
BY making the amendment, as stated, 10 be
not less than five and not more than eleven
Judges, no legislation would be necessary until
1893. and by continuing the commission until
then, the general assembly at that time could
well determine the extra number of judges
needed. While 1t Is true that two courts OF
FIVE judges each would and cOuld decide more
cases than court composed of ten Judges, yet
10 Is not belleNe0 tnat the WOrk WOulQ &c QonS
as we'll nor would the decisions of either have
such influence and respect as the court with the
greater number Of judges.
Many causes OF action, although not Of much
importance to the public or others, involve the
entire estate OF litigant and 10 such Is of fmUre
importance than many cases involving thou
sands OF dollars 10 others. To such 1t Is best
and right and far more satisfying that they
have the benefit OF the judgment OF the highest
court in the state, and that they be not denied
that judgment because their suit may be in.
significant as compared, in dollars and cents, 70
other cases It Is looking too much ike giving
the rich, with their large mOneyed interests, the
benefit of the highest court, and OF denying
that court to the poor with their smaller cases,
involving their entire property. The principle
involved in this plan is equal and exact Justics
TO all and meted out by the same court 10 all.
Another suggestion has for years been dis
cussed more or less, which would be great
saving of labor to our supreme judges, and
would be a great saving 10 the taxpayers and
lawyers, in amending sec. > OF ART :, 30 as IA
leave il 10 the discretion Of the court to give
written statement OF the important and con-
trolling questions involved Ia each case, with
their decision thereon, avoiding a repetition OF
decisions as well as all frivolous points. This
would certainly greatly lessen the labor Of the
judges and would be readily aequiesced IN by
the legal profession. ". III. DILIs.
Auburn. Dec 81.