New-York tribune., 1890-04-19

it reaches him.
SUJTORS AND THE SUPREME COURT
Under caption which did not reveal its
specifc meaning bill to relieve suitors at the
bar of the United States Supreme Court was
nassed by the House of Representatives on
Tuesday. Few subjects of greater importance
will engage the attention of Congress at this
session. The Supreme Court is three years
behind its docket, and the situation is steadily
growing worse. For years past this conges-
ton has amounted to at least partial denial
of Justice to all litigants whose right it is to
demand a prompt settlement of legal contro-
VERSES while in numerous instances delay has
caused irrecoverable losses. The necessity OF
removing this abuse has never been i'll dispute
Various remedies have been proposed i'll good
faith. and more than one Of them has seemed
at different times to be on the verge OF enact
ment The general proposition has been
staple subject of discussion at meetings of the
bar for a dozen years, and the views of lawyers
have gradually approached agreement, until
now there is an almost unanimous sentiment
in support of system of intermediate appel
late courts
This principle has been made tho basis OF
the measure which has just passed the House.
and which, therefore, is sure to be generally
welcomed by the profession as the first step
toward a most desirable improvement i'll the
administration Of justice in Federal courts. y
measure of similar import is before the Ju-
dietary Committee OF the Senate. 1t is prob
able that a conference committee will agree
upon combination of the best features OF both
these bills which will satisfy the bar OF the
country The House bill erccts the existing
circuit courts into appellate courts, by the
addition of two new Judges in each circuit and
the vestng of original jurisdiction exclusively
in the district courts, and further savcb tho
time of the Supreme Court by relieving tho
Justices of circuit duty. In its present form
it will certainly be criticised severely as respects
some of its details, though the central design
is thoroughly approved. Judge Gresham Is
already quoted as objecting to the measure, on
the ground that it will, to considerable cX-
tent, transfer the present congestion from the
Supreme Court to the district courts-ln his
Judgment particular misfortune " since the
trial courts are those nearest and most I'M
portant to the people
The measure of relief recommended by the
American Bar Association, which is said 70 bc
regarded with favor by the Judiciary Com
mittee of the Senate and which is therefore
likely TO be carefully considered in conference
likewise proposes intermediate appellate courts
but would make their construction and Jurs-
diction somewhat different. The most impor-
tant distinction is stated as follows in the argu-
ment recently presented AT Washington by Mr.
Walter b. Hill, of Georgia, in behalf OF the
association Ceases involving strictly Federal
questions will be appealable directly to the
Supreme Court from the inferior courts OF
original jurisdiction all other cases from these
courts will 90 10 the intermediate appellate
court. and will there be finally heard except
in those instances where the harmony OF Fed
eIal jurisprudence or the importance OF the
oue,tjon involved may require final docison
on appeal. by the Supreme Court" Another
feature Of relief which is not found either in
the bill lust passed ly the House or in that
( drafted by Mr.. Hill has been proposed As 70
/ separate measure in Congress, and deserves
careful consideration. 1t provides for court
Of patent appeals, thus relieving the Supreme
| Court Of the necessity Of passing upon qu''-
tions of fact in patent causes, which, though
they are not excessively numerous, now occupy
nearly or quite One-third of the whole time
of the court.
TO those who have devoted the most time
and labor TO the problem now under discussion
the most cheering fact in connection with the
passage by thc House Of Representatives Of
the bill referred to is that it seems to dispose
Of the dangerous suggestion that the supreme
Court should be divided into coordinate
branches. Some eminent individuals have ap-
proved that plan, but the objections to 1t are
numerous and weighty The most important
Of these is the probability that it would be de-
clared unconstitutional by the tribunal IN
whose behalf ii is proposed. Speaking in
Philadelphia in 1881 and representing, as was
supposed, the views Of his colleagues as well
as his own, the late Chicf-Justice Waite quoted
the language of the Constitution, and added A:
Certainly a provision in such pointed IAN
| guage carries with it the strongest implication
that when this court acts it must act as an en-
tilety, and Pat its judgments shall be the Juds-
ments of a court sitting judiclally as one court
and not as several colts' The various bar
associations of the country without exception
have condemned a division OF the Supreme
Court and there will be a general sense OF
satisfaction in the knowledge that this blunder
is no longer threatened.
~------