New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-04-17
NO DECISIVE ACTION TAKEN
TAX OF CONSOLIDATING COURTS
/ rnurrsss nEgrrNe OF rHn Bah AssocrA.
TIoN.


The nesting Of the Bar Association for the purpose
NJ considering the proposed consolidation OF the su-
nar,or Court and the Court Of Common Pleas with the
sunrems Court, which was held at the rooms Of tho
association In West Twentyninth-st last evening had
large attendance and ives fruitful only OF much dis
s,,ss.cn BY close vote approval OF the plan OF con-
,o,,dst,cp presented by special committee was WIN
be,d and motion TO express decided disapprovai OF me
eensoidston scheme was laid on the table az iaeo
sour BY large majority. The friends OF the measure
fslsd to soore victory, but It's opponents did NOT
succecd In driving them from the Held.
Joseph II. Choate, the president, after cainng the
meeting to order, announced that q reception 70 'ne
Chef Justice and Justices Of the supreme court oi
the United States would DO given ct the ciae nouse
on Wednesday evening, May 1.
Ex,Judge Hooper C. Van Worst, chairman OF tho
spec.d committee appointed to consider the CON
soidation idea, reported bill to take me place "
the two bills introduced al Albany. Inc hrs' VI
these, with slight changes, has the aprrovai OF he
snrreme Court Judges: the second is favorably re-
gared by the Judges Of the Superior Court ana court Oh
Common Pleas The main point OF difference between
these two Is that the first places tho Twelve 'uaseS
to Do consolidated into the Supreme Court on plane
not entirely equal to that Of the old supreme coure
Judges, while the second makes all In all respects
equal What the committees bill proposes Is 10 70
. conc.le the differences. Ex.Judge Van Worst
views Justice Barrett wrote approving the first bill
and saving that endorsements resulting from the
existence of three courts could only DO remedied by
consolidation. An amendment prepared by Justice
Barrett and some OF his associates. meeting somo
objections that had been made to tho blu at first APP
proved By him, was also rao'
Tbs concurrence OF Justices 0'Brien, Lawrence,
Beach, Andrews and rnraham was Endorsed on the
amendment Artemas Il. Holmes read letter from
ht.t 1,,t,ca seas,yck of the Superior Court saying
that the bin approved by the supreme Court Justices
before II was amended would not meet the require.
epts of judicial business In this country. ExJudge
Van Worst calIed attention 10 the fact that the btu
referred 10 By Chief Justice Sedgwlck had been
smspded since he wrote the letter. letter from
tndce Of the Court Of Common Pleas condemning the
nar Association bin was read. His name was not
announced Hc condemned the existence OF judges
not all having equal powers In another letter
Chief Justice sedgwick said that the judges Of his
court did not resist any proposed, but that
the provision about Circuit judges was faulty. Elk
Chief Justice Noah Davis in letter said he you'd favos
the first bill approved by the Supreme Court judges.
Ex,Judgc Arnoux offered resolution declaring it
insxpedien to consolidate the Superior and Common
Pleas Courts with the supreme Court Herbert n.
Turner offered substitute TO ex-Judge Arnoux's
resolution, approving the resolution proposed by the
committee. After some discussion, m which Chhord
A. Hand, James C. Carter, Augustus Z. Brown,
Alfred Davenport and others took part Mr. tuners
resolution was voted down.
se the ss a. s ad that
nttee Of seven be appointed to confer with the
needed remedy. Mr.. Garter said than there were w.
douotediy evils that needed remedy and iavorsa me
a q " s Il hT oSaa CSoT a
Ihc motion was lost by vote OF As to so Ex-
S Ano Sr 9 yo %ss and men the 81 sa O
once adjourned.