Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-02-14

2. An increase in the number Of Judges of
the present Supreme Court Of the District, and
the creation within that court of permanent
general term, to be composed of the chief JUS
Oldest in commission the other justices to be
relegated permanently to the special terms,
and to succeed in the order of their seniority to
the general term whenever a vacancy occurs in
that part OF the organization.
! 8. The establishment Of the present Supreme
Court Of the District as an appellate court with
appellate jurisdiction only, and the creation
OF new courts, with new judges, for the business
now transacted in the several special terms.
4. The establishment Of now, separate and
distinct court of appeals, with appellate juris-
diction only; the abolition of the present ap-
dellate jurisdiction of the general term, and a
provision for appeals to be taken directly from
the special terms to this new court of appeals.
DISCUSSING THE PROPOSITION.
The committee is very strongly Of the opin-
ion that the continuance of our present judicial
system. with merely an increase in the number
Of judges, will not remedy the evils of which
We complain. The extremely variable charac-
ter Of our present appellate tribunal does not
justify its perpetuation; and it is impossible,
under the existing system, that it should ever
be otherwise than variable. Our experience, rs
well as the experience of other communities,
has demonstrated the Inability of too
close proximity of the appellate tribunal to the
courts from which appeals are taken to it. The
perfection OF the appellate system requires that
the appellate tribunal should be entirely segre-
gated from the subordinate courts. Your COM
mittee has. therefore, unhesitatngly rejected
the plan comprised in the first proposition that
has been stated.
The second proposition, which provides for
an increase in the number Of the Judges of the
present court, and the creation within it of
permanent general term to be composed of the
chief justice and some of the senior associate
justices, is rather ingenious modification of
the preceding plan. 1t is of exceedingly doubt
full constitutionality, inasmuch as it would
create i'll fact, If not in name, several practi-
cally Independent courts out Of the present one
and would usurp the Presidents prerogative of
nominating the judges. The general term thus
proposed would be to all intents and purposes
new court. and yet it's judges would not be Sc
lected IN the usual constitutional way. But
apart from this the discrimination implied in
the proposition would be unjust to some of the
judges; and the separation of the appellate
branch OF the court from the special terms
would not be sufficiently marked and distinct,
The committee does not believe that this
scheme would tend in the remotest degree to
produce the desired efficiency in the admins
tration of justice. Especially, as we desire
permanent amelioration OF our judicial system,
it is not expedient that we should run the risk
OF proposing measure of doubtful constitu-
tionality.
CO1nInlt-
tee would erect the present court of the Dis
trict OF Columbia into a purely appellate
tribunal, and would provide for the establish
ment of new subordinate tribunals four or five
in number, to transact the business now trans
acted by the several special terms. It ia be-
lieved that this plan would be more tiistasteful
to the members Of the bar, and more unsatis-
factory in its results than any of the other pro-
posed schemes. 1t is open to several objections.
The same doubt as to its cOnstitutionality might
IL
jurisdiction OF the present court is but an in
cident of its ordinary general original jurisdic-
ton; and its transformation into purely ap-
pellate tribunal would be practically the
creation OF new court with the impropriety
of taking away from the President the nomi-
nation OF its judges AS stated in reference to
the preceding proposition it is inexpedient to
run the risk of encountering this objection
Amy scheme proposed by this association under
present circumstances should be even beyond
the suspicion of unconstitutionality.
Moreover this proposition would create an
appellate court OF six judges, an inconvenient
number and probably too large u number. At
least four and probably five new courts would
have to be created and the whole legislation on
the subject OF the judiciary would have to be
revised and remodeled. The creation of four
or five independent courts at this time would
meet with serious difficulty. And the question
OF economy in this connection is one of consid-
cradle Importance.
These three propositions which we have con-
sidered are largely based upon personal regard
for the present judges of the Supreme Court
of the District. and for that reason alone if for
no other. they would have received, and they
have received, the earnest consideration of
your committee. But your committee is of
opinion that whatever scheme we now devise
should not be a mere makeshift but one of n
permanent character, and that we should not
permit our individual preferences or personal
consideration to weigh in the balance against
the general good of the community and the
efficiency in the administration of justice
which your committee has been charged first of
all to seek
COURT OF APPEALS.
There remains the fourth and last proposition,
which provides for new. separate and distinct
court OF appeals, with appellate jurisdiction
only. This scheme contemplates no interior
ence whatever with the organization Of the
present Supreme Court of the District OF Co
lumbia, except that it would take from it its
appellate jurisdiction and that appeals would
be taken directly from the special terms to the
new tribunal 1t would leave the present
judges to devote themselves mainly to the work
of the special terms; and it would enable them
to give themselves more efficiently to that
work, to divide the Circuit Court calendar. to
constitute the Orphans court regular surro-
gates court to aid each other in the dispatch
Of the business which is now SO greatly in ar
rears; and to do all this without the inconyeu-
fences resulting from the necessity Of sitting in
judgment upon each other. 49,
There is no doubt that in the near future
there will come a great abridgement OF the
privilege OF appeal to the Supreme Court Of
the United States which we now enjoy in this
District A provision for the establishment of
such court of appeals, coupled with limita-
ton Of the privilege OF appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States, which would place
US on the same footing as the state courts,
would be welcomed by Congress and by the
Supreme Court as a measure of relief to the
there is SO much lcason to complain. This
adoption by Congress Of the scheme proposed
in this fourth proposition.
Your committee believes that this scheme
will most efficiently promote the sdministra-
ton OF Justice in our midst; that it presents
the simplest plainest and best plan OF relief,
and that it is the most. feasible. 1t will inter-
fere least with existing law. 1t may meet with
some antagonism, but the committee has rea-
son to believe that such antag0nism will be
futile II the bar will unite In support Of the
measure. And the committee has reason also
TO think that the proposed court of appeals
may be placed on superior level from the be-
ginning by being made non-partisan, In accord
ance with the unwritten law which has con-
roiied the appointment Of the executive off,
GERS for the District Of Columbia.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COURT.
Your committee i Of opinion that the pro.