Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-02-19

There are other reasons Why the Bar associa-
| ton objects to the continuance Of the present
| arrangement Of one court, with special and
| general terms; but it is unnecessary to enum-
crate them. Enough has already been said to
demonstrate that the system is a vicious one
We believe 1t will not be controverted BY any
one familiar with the matter that the time has
now come when this system should be changed
by making the appellate court stable instead
OF shifting tribunal. Such a system as now
exists Is to be found in but few jurisdictions in
this country.
Indeed, it was not originally intended to ex.
Is. mere. The early practice Of the court was
for the several justices to go to the special terms
and then all come together at stated times in
general term to hear appeals This was un-
doubleday what was contemplated when the
court was created in 1868, as the original act
provided but four justices In all and it was i'm
possible with that number that the general
terms and the special terms should be in ses-
| sion at the same time.
Whatever objections there were to this sys-
tenn the general term was composed Of all the
| Judges ana 30 was not variable in its compost
tion. But In 1870 a fifth justice was added
| tine orphans court being abolished a. the same
| time), and IN 1879 q sixth justice was author
ized; the act Of 1879 also providing that any
TWO OF the justices might hold a general term
ana promoting any justice from sitting in the
| general term to hear an appeal from his dec-
| sion IN special term. Since that act was
passed the evils Of the present organization Of
the court have grown till they have become in
| tOlerable.
THE TWO PLANS SUGGESTED.
All agree that for those evils and for those
| growing out Of the insufficient number Of
judges and the consequent delay in the dis
position OF cases, there is an urgent necessity
for relief from Congress- But two plans for
meeting these evils have been seriously urged.
One 10 that which is embodied i'll the bill now
| submitted to Congress and which has been ap-
proved by the Bar association of the District
after thorough and patient investigation Of
the subject 1t is to create O court of appeals
IN the District to which court shall be transfer
red the present jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court Of the District Of Columbia in general
Term. The other plan is to add to the number
OF the Justices OF the present court and to pro-
vide that the chief justice with two or more Of
the other justices--those senior in commission.
shall ait permanently in the general term and
that thereafter vacancies il the general term
shall be filled by the promotion Of the justices
below, IN the order Of seniority by commits
Sion.
A fatal objection to this plan, in our judg-
ment, is that it is unconstitutional. 1t is in
effect to create a new court and to appoint the
judges thereof by an act Of Congress.
Moreover, it is obvious that the difficulties
that have been set forth and suggested above,
growing out OF the existing relations between
the trial justices and those who sit in the APP
pellate court, would only be partially removed
by continuing the present organization, with
the provision that the senior justices shall sit
permanently in the general term. Nor do we
think that any good reason can be given for
selecting the senior associate justices to sit in
the general term, thus discriminating against
those who have not been upon the bench SO
long. If the general term, constituted on this
plan, were to be composed OF five justices, it
associate justice, who alone would be left to
stay in special term while all his brethren
would go to the appellate court
1t seems to US clear that the judges who
shall compose the proposed appellate court
should be selected in the usual way by the CO.
ordinate action of the President and the Sem
ate. We have assumed that such appoint
ments will result in some of the present
Justices going to the proposed court Of appeals
and we have accordingly provided in the bill
submitted that when this shall occur service in
the two courts shall be deemed continuous
under the law authorizing judge of court
OF the United States to retire at seventy after
ten years service.
THE BAR ASSOCIATION BILL.
The bill we submit provides for a force Of
ten judges in this District, and proposes an in
crease Of salaries as to the chief Justices from
S4,5O0 to 1880 and as to the associate justices
from "a. 600 to 1900 per annum. This will in
crease the gross amount of the salaries of the
judges OF this District from s24, 500 year to
VfV,oOV. Dy bcCtOu ~ OF the Dill u, now
ever, declared that one-half of the salaries
shall hereafter be charged to the District
Heretofore the District has borne no part OF
thus burden. The proposed increase in the
amount to be paid by the United States is,
therefore. only $40, $50 year.
memorandum is appended hereto giving
summary of the past legislation of Congress in
reference to the number of judges in this Dis
trict, excluding magistrates and police JUS
tees. 1t will appear that from 1901 to 1888
there were four judges, from 1888 to 1879 there
were FIVE, and since 1879 there have been six
The population of the District between 1900 and
1910 rose from 4.093 to 1912; by 1880 it had
become III, GA, and IL is now over $40, OOO Be-
tween 1900 and 1880 each Judge represented from
8, 500 to 10, 600 Of population; from 1910 to 1880
the number OF persons in the District to each
judge varied from $500 in 1910 to rs, 800 in
1880, and at the present time there is one
judge to each 40, 900 residents of the District.
We doubt whether in any state Of the Union
there are SO few judges in proportion to the
population.
But any such comparison would fall far short
OF doing justice to this District, because it makes
no allowance for the laborious and important
duties devolving upon our judges by reason of
the District containing within its limits the
capital OF the United States. large proper
ton OF our litigated cases grow out Of govern
mental affairs. Business in the Equity Court
is sometimes almost blocked by struggles going
on therein tor the division among contending
Cidiludub Vi money pdlO or ABOUT TO DC paid
from the public treasury. Above all, the courts
of the District are called upon to consider
cases OF great concern to all the people of the
United States which can arise in no other
jurisdiction. The right of citizen to compel
by mandamus the performance by officers of
any OF the great departments of the govern
ment OF any ministerial duty in which the De-
titiOner has an interest can be enforced here
only. Cases involving constitutional questions
as to the powers of the respective departments
of the government are manifestly more likely
to arise at the seat Of government than any
where else.
CASES OF NATIONAL CONCERN.
From Marbury VS.. Madison. In 1901, to the
present time such cases have occupied much
of the time Of the District courts. Kilbourn
Vs. Thompson, involving the right of the House
OF Representatives to imprson citizen for
contempt for refusing to answer questions put
to him by committee of Congress is a striking
illustration of this and is fresh In the recollec-
ton of all. In that there was first an argu-
ment Of many days the hearing Of Kill
bourn's application to be discharged on habeas
corpus. Afterward there were extended argu-
ments in his suit against the Speaker and
others as to their responsibility in the matter.
Then there were three protracted jury trials
before the amount of damages to be allowed
Kilbourn was finally determined
So criminal cases of great public concern
growing out Of the operations of the depart
meuts constantly come before the courts of the