New-York tribune., 1890-04-03
TO EXPEDITE LITIGATION.
THE SUPREME COURT OVERWHELMED.
NEED or UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ARGUMENTS FOR BILL NOW BIZ.
FORE CONGEE.

FORE CONGRESS.
Il possible that thousands Of American readers OF
Dicicnss Ecak House. whosh have grieved tho
fortunes OF the miserable litigants in the famous
Chanccy OF arndycc agt Jarndycc are not aware
OF the fact that the increasing volume Of litigation
which is referred the supreme Court OF the United
states has unfortunately made that institution parallel
that legal abhorrcncc Of English suitors-thc old
Chancery Conrt Of Great Britain. But such IS tho
fact. The blame cannot be said 10 rest with the
Judges Of supreme Court, who perform their duty
faithfully and well. and themselves victims of the
present sys:cn. ut there hundreds of litigants
undergoing all the mi-crics Of hope deferred and tho
material Inconvenience of legal expenses steadily
cumulaling patiently waiting for the supreme Court
10 hear their
The calendar of the court a history Of broken
hearts and broken fortunes. caused by the delays OF
justice la. are inevitable account OF the volume
OF business submitted 10 the court. The injustice of
these delays both to litgants and the supreme Court
judges Themselves has long been burning question
I'm judicial and legal circles. The late Senator Davis,
Of Illinois. formerly Justice OF the Supreme Court.
deeply Interested himself In the matter and with the
thosou gncSs and determination which were charac-
tcrstic Of him. he endeavorcd to remedy the evil.
Aftcr much careful consideration and much honest
labor he introduced a bilr 10 establish a Court Of
Appeals into the Senate In May 1892 and succeeded
In securing majority In favor Of It's adoption This
bill is before Congress as ii. Il. bill No. 1916,
introduced by Mr. Payson December Is. 1859.
A meeting of the Bar Association of the City Of
New York held on March II, unanimously adop;cd
a resolution indorsng the bill and urging upon the
special committee charged with It's consideration to
continue their efforts T. secure the passage OF the
tl.- il was Of pressing public urgency. and as
il would be misfortune 10 have it fail to be taken
mp and passed at the present session.
Frederic r. Coudcrt. The president of the Bar
Association. and benjamin I. Lee. the chairman OF
~. t..lI Ii
Court Of Appeals, have caused circular to be dis
,rbutcd among the members Of Congress, and members
Of the LEGAL profession. ard have at considerable IN
convenience done everything possible 10 expedite tho
Introduction Of this longncsdcd reform.
In conversation with Tribune reporter ycstcr
day Mr. Coudcrt said The necessity of the cstab-
li,hrcnt Of a Court Of Appeal, which wonld admins
ter prompt justice TO thousands oi gants now kept
three four years awaiting the decision Of the SUI
premc Court. IA, long been apparent. The Bar has
ben clamorlng for improvement In the methods
II appeal in the Federal Courts for many years. The
present system. A, originally devised may nave
worked well enough. and probably did. when the
community small and the business Insignificant
In volamc In fact. know that the supreme
Court of the United states when IT first In the
cliy Of Ncs-Yorh compelled 20 adjourn for la'a
OF business Hut the last fcw years have witnessed
mar, cllous change. multiplicity of new questions
ha- arisen. The patent which crowd the
docket of the supreme court today are alone Hl'rs
than the court can promptly dispose Of The tide
u litigation j, constantly rising. and IN" manifold
and muitliorm issues that had no existence al the
f.ur O. f.r founding Oi the -upr'm" Court nov hc-
m.ud careful cJn ..dceitien thau }, possible
With the crowd %; ushnt' impaucntly waiting Al ule
a., IL, pnooocinc uow is an appeal from the de-
,i-l,u ol "A district Judge Is simply au appeal ID an
other judge. Who na' or may not b. ,le S"ltnD .l
I'D .Nt,r!.ncc. Intelligence aud legal acuncr "i mo
nc irte Who's, decision hc Is ,allcl upon to revise
and possibly tD reverse. The c>lns evil Is the LACK
~ intermediate court OF aplfli nom tlat u''i'l'h
"a, lic supreme court Of the nt'd states II prompt
rcs. d, an element of Justice tc present. - ZEN i
icc!d.dl. lccf1nahlc. JLdsc Davi, bill. II @Gopi"
n ~, present form. VIII intfoducc % wise and b'nra
tatei, ~oa;d ,on-.., X fur ,ud -cs. and would di'
mo- ri many %. ihc appeals foul the District :ni
h.. .,a,c mos. ,tronrl u - c,ra.n that III. majority
of cases would 20 nO further than ms CO.. ti' '"
". ,.' fit ,n,rr, ed with the Oricf that ne could
obtain nD rli'' irDm tie supreme Court EN''W. ~
grave case, and cases m'oN'n- t"" l"s",i' NV
decision o.: G'h cori., c'P-'al' IL uh4nn,"n,' .ou
uouI Doe practically Antl. SON. .thDs must Oe oo'o'
.. iAr p, ',nt -, -ter }. inio ia i' ,...,,a,
lee IA The srnnI .f'm the Dl-tri'i 'oart Z" ih'
t.,cot court .,t'..e, no onc. Tie appeal hon the
f.ut involve. laF thoi p.a - "' 'W'ui'' , ~ an
,.a-.c. j.. a. perfect . a." continued gu i-'.'
a. f.'. ,olufr, rln iHthc IT, T. Las Deen 'ioWh per
~ .. -inrr i,-- when justice I1ri- first intTOdu',d
h. Dil INTO the senate IL provides .cm'dy for ihe
- ,',r ,,i.tir- and cpilfcrA,i- thr mischief and
,i. .,. fr,fu The division Of the MS. pr.us Ed
,al system Into tTo court, The 'hci HAiSrr AT ele
moment ICES n tho nct Nat the -frat interest 1ae -,
If. BE-, fn. question Ia lnd 81 th" nrclucuon ol
l-t n"','' , =" e..,'i e..' fhcr. J.. dlnrrr of none II
Nom i.., atopcd thinh thor, f,r. the only safe
v,v {. to pa. th- bin to c-ahli>h Court OF Appeals
without delay. f,cry -cruon 81 .hi, pil ha, b''I'
sbli.d 4, the most careful and plin-iahns cNam!na-
tOn and r,v ion and 30 passed the senate hv ah'
two thiri, vote in ir-@ when tie ClaMbcr was rlnay
Tie Hou.c without doubt Il 1t could have been
rchf he'd