New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-08-18

many pang of regret Much of this will bic
due TO personal liking for the judges themselves,
who are, perhaps, all Of them men of attractive
personal qualities, with large circles Of warm
friends. They also good lawyers and have
labored zealously and faithfully TO elevate the
dignity and strengthen the reputation of the
court. 1t will seem hard to many that this
blow should have happened to fall upon the
court at time when il possessed many elements
OF strength and usefulness that it has not at
all times in the same degree preserved But
these judges will appreciate and the public will
understand that this step toward consolidation
and strengthening of the judicial system cannot
be construed a rebuke even criticism of
that bench nor is any discrimination intended
to be made against them and In favor of the
Common Pleas judges. In fact, this action is
quite irrespective of the personal character or
reputation OF the members of these courts, either
as judges or men but has become an absolutely
necessary step if the unity Of the new judicial
system is TO be confirmed and its success in
sured. The Common Pleas Court must remain
as the only representative in this city of what
is the County Court III other parts Of the State.
II has in that capacity certain essential func-
tions TO perform, and If they shall not be suili
Gent to employ the time of its judges, together
with the causes instituted in that tribunal, other
may be sent to them for trial from the
Supreme Court, or the judges may themselves
he drafted TO serve i'm the latter court. There
is no such reason for preserving the Superior
Court and despite the ability and popularity
of its Judges and the general satisfaction with
the manner in which the court has been con-
Quoted. there seems to be no reason lOr qucS-
tiOning the wisdom of its proposed abolition.
\ DETAIL THAT WILL PROVOKE CRITICISM.
The part of the revision which will provoke
most criticism and which will be most unwel-
.l,, +I,o, oltoc i hat NVlip
excludes all Judges who sit at trial term from
participating in the hearing of any appeals, and
which, on the other hand, confines the
judges of the first appeal court 10 the
hearing of appeals alone. Judges of the
several courts at present are all eligible
to sit in their respective General Terms and no one
Of them can claim 10 rank another Of his ass0cl-
atcs except as the Office of Presiding Justice or
Chief Judge may give such distinction. But
under the system of the General Term OF
court will be as distinct from the Justices OF the
Supreme Court proper the judges Of the
Court of Appeals. To the Judges place in
neither Of the revised courts will present the same
attractions that the Office Of Supreme Court
Justice now presents and if any of these judges
had been members of the Commission 1t can
scarcely be doubted that they would have OPP
posed the new plan.
The wisdom and propricty Of excluding, judges
from the Commission have been argued rom
these facts. II there is anything in that sug
gestion, il would have been still more apparent
when the vote came to be taken on the length of
term Of tie judges Office. The action Of the
Commission in retaining the present term of four
teen years and IN lcngthcning the sN-year term
Of the Surrogate will receive popular commcnda-
ton. There never appeared 70 he any general
sentiment behind the proposition 10 shorten the
term = eight Years. and manifold objections TO it
are apparent Yet it is well that the decision Of
the question not embarrassed by the presence
or Interested votes of any active members OF the
supreme Court bench.
IrvfrATrOY or APPEALS
The Commission has still one Of its gravest
problems to solve in determining what llmita-
lions - put upon appeals to the highest state
court Bat tie report OF the Committee on the
Court of Appeals and the reception it received In
the Commission show the drift Of opinion on the
subject II Is evident that Mr.. Carriers able
paper Advocating the continuance Of the court
with a limited number OF members sitting TO-
pethcr in a single DIVISION and the views which
liz, there expresses rs 10 relative rights of APP
peal. have had much weight with the Commits
soncrs Mr.. Carter contends that il IS the alb
solute right Of each sutor 10 one ialr trlal OF MS
cause at which all the questions of fact may nc
completely determined lie is also entitled 10 an
appeal 20 competent tribunal, where
all the questions OF law arising upon
the trial or in tie progress Of the
cause may receive such deliberate determination
a. IL is not possible 10 ensure from the de-
csion Of the single Judge. But when the party
has had that appeal. Mr.. Carter insists, he is
not Of right entitled to any further review in
ordinary cases. This right Is secured to him
under the new system by his appeal To the
General Term Of five judges The further APP
peal 10 the Court of Appeals is not given as
the right OF the lItgant but for the bcneht
Of the people of the Stat" at large that the
law upon each subject may be determined by
the highest authority. Therefore, 1t Is proposed
as far practicable 10 limit the appeals III
ease, in which the law is presumed to be thor
oLghly settled - III" General Term, where the
anrmancr 10y that tribunal of the Judgment be-
low is unanimous. Where there is any differ
encc Of opinion between the judges below or
where different General Terms arrive NJ different
conclusions on The sane question, thcn, doubt
less. an appeal will still be- given 10 the Court
of Appeals While probably no two commits
sioncrs haze exactly the same idea ms To the
character of these limitations, conclusions Will
doubtless finally bc reached that viii shut out
a larIc number Of cases That cach year uhucr
the present system would continue 10 go 10
the Court Of Appeals. although all the material
questions OF law in them had been passed upon
time and again by that tribunal II IS indeed
a wcllknown fact that many defeated parties
carry their litigutious 10 the highest court for
purposes Of delay only. hoping IN the TWO or
three years that the causes are tled up III the
Court Of Appeals they may be able 10 force
settlement from the dlshcartcned sultorS, OF
otherwise gain some advantage quite independent
Of any expectation of n reversal OF me JUG
mcnf below Under the plan OF REVISION pro-
po,cd large proportion OF negligence JUDGEMENTS
viii re determined finally by the General Term
and there ar" certain o'hcr cI'SSrS o. ,'s's' 80
for instance the Elevated Railroad hnd-dalnagr
ca,cs i'm which the law Is equally wen NIucd
where tie defeated party will have 70 rest con
tent with the Judgment of The General Term
where there is no difference Of opinion between
tLe iudocs of that court in affirming the judG-
mcut giy,r AT trial term II is 10 be hoped mat
fine present differences OF opinion upon the de-
tails thai exists among the commissioners may
he entirely rccOncilcd that unanimous re-
nort mon this extremely important branch or
their work may 90 TO the Legislature ana tie
people.
UrSTrRy VETERANS START NONE.