, 1889-07-25

carried to the, United States supreme
court, and by that court put back again
upon the docket. I'VE don't want nny
more of that sort of court, and as
Grover Cleveland once said, This Is a con-
dition and not a theory which conironts
us
j. r. Moore was as much In favor of
real economy as any gentleman on the
floor, and believed five judges to he bet
9. ter economy than three, but he Thought
THIS to be not so much
QUESTION OF ECONOMY
rs of establishing firmly upon It's feet
one of the coordinate branches of the
government. He observed too great a
tendency on all hands to put the prun.
ing knife into judicial matters. notably
in congress, where thousands of dollars
were permitted to be spent in useless
little crceds and views, when the judi-
: cial business OF both states and terri
tories were. allowed to suf-
fer for lack of sufficient appro-
priatlons He preferred to , give
five Judges with 5000 salary each to be
the proper figures. He suggested that
( the number be five and then that tlc
chief Justice assign from time totimc
such members, if any, of the court as
are too little employed to hold the
courts of superior judges who may be
overworkcd.
Mr.. Prosser thought Mr.. Turner might
have stated that most of the state courts
to which he had referred had grown up
gradually, while with us the court would
havo great numhot of important cues
tions to decide from the very start.
However i'll most of the large interior
states, where the business was prlnci-
I al la NO attl tt.ttl H., A
have so many and varied questions to
deal with, as here, where questions of
tide flats, mining interests and cases
tof great commercial importance,
owing TO our position on the
greatest tide water harbor ON the Pacific
coast, must be considered. No state in
the Union has or will have SO great or so
diversified interests within its borders Us
the state of Washington, or a greater
number or variety of questions for Its
courts to consider, 40 he was In favor of
five Judges, which he believed experience
would soon show was small enough.
MIR. Stiles said that Notwithstanding
the amount of time already consumed
he, should be doing AN injustice to his
dissenting report If he did not give his
reasons for still believing IN that report
aud in the advisability of having five
judges. The very reason why the con-
vention was here to-day discussing this
question was because Of the experience
already with the territorial supreme
court, which was limited to three Judges.
He did not intend to dwell on the merits
or dement's of that conrt, but In the time
he had been i'll the territory he had
found widespread dissatisfaction with
that court IL is not, as has been inti-
mated, that widespread suspicion of
the judges individually pervades the
minds of the lawyers, but chiefly that
the feeling of
GoopFELLowsHIr
which was inseparablc from small
numberof judges had had its effect upon
the decisions of the court, and from this
had come many of the ill-judged deci-
siOns of that court. He believed that
Mr., Grititts had given good reasons for
the adoption of the substitute which he
had proposed, and he had heard only
the one substantial objection, viz, that
of ecouomy. As tn that, the territory
had for many years been pressing its de.
mand for admission to statehood and
was well aware that the expenses would
be greater and was, he believed
den. As TO the figures that
had been given. he thought them ex-
aggeratcd. Allowing the $8s,0OO for
| judiciary and an average of 5000 per
year for the Legislature and "a liberal al
lowance for other expenses, and he
could only get about $4,000 per year
instead of the 100000 which a gentle
man (kinnear) had claimed. But even
il it was S0oo,0oo he should still stand
| for five judges for the supreme
court until the last minute.
Mr., Sharpstein briefly stated his pre-
ference for three judges, saying the tide
land, and mining questions had all been
fought out in the courts of California
and other states and so would not have
to be originally decided by this court
Then again, while he hoped we should
/ become
GREAT STATE,
with plenty of taxable property from
which TO raise money to pay these great
! expenses, he preferred tn start on more
economical basis now and leave the
/ legislature to attend to the future. If
the territorial court was only six months
behind hands with three judges sitting
one month in the year, II was only fair
| to suppose that three Judges, sitting all
| the year, could attend to all the business
| promptly.
Mr.. Wilson favored the substitute,
| though he would prefer to leave the
| legislature to fix the salaries.
Mr.. Allen favored five judges, as of.
| fering the best probabilities of avoiding
delay in the decision of cases.
/ Mr.. Browne favored five Judges, be-
| lieving that the first few years would re.
quire the court to make those decisions
which would always stand as precc-
dents. He believed in getting the best
/ for the court and in cutting down eN-
penscs somewhere else If necessary, and
| Favored the proposition to have five
/ judges Mt $1,000 each.
Mr.. Buchanan took the floor and pro-
ceeded to speak.
MIR. Warner-I object to the gentle
man y speaking again while other mem
| bers desire TO speak. The gentleman
has been calling question" while other
members were speaking.
Mr.. Sharpstein called for the ayes and
noes.
The Chair-That cannot be done in
committee of the whole.
Mr. Turner addressed the chair.
The chair understood that Mr.. Warner
desired to speak on the question, other
| wise Mr.. Buchanan had the floor.
Mr. Warner explained that he did not
wish the floor, but only objected to "a
gentleman calling out question" when
| other gentlemen were speaking and then
taking the floor himself afterwards.
The chair said that was not u valid OBJ
lection as the gentleman had the right
TO do just that.
Mr., Buchanan said he had not been
conscious of calling question" but
was directed by the chair to go on with
out losing time about that. He then
said that the trouble now is that the
present court gets together and sits upon
euch others decisions, and so any refer
ence to the present court is no argu-
ment, for the present court is in no way
analogous to the proposed supreme
court.
| NJ. m. 3D.,