The advocate., 1890-10-15
THE JUDICIAL AMENDMENT.
Continued from ninth paOs)

VIII require lbh bophfhbo cOufb room anu
othor apartments, Ia own full corps Of court
officers and its court machinery. Why all
this whom II can be demonstratedt 10 any one
that tho increased supreme court proposed
by the amendment will be large enough and
strong enough 70 do the appellate work In
our judicial system for many years 10 come
and probably forever2
Il ought not 10 be very difficult for the
man, farmer and mechanic (who are mover
in litigation unless thoy are compelled 10
boz 10 determine which is tho most ecOnom-
ical plan Of disposing of tho appellate busi-
ness OF tho courts OF this state.
While II Is sufficient objection 10 addi-
tiOnal appellate courts that they unneoes-
Sarily increase tho public expense, there is
another and more important reason why
they should not be loaded upon our judicial
system. Additional courts add complica-
tons TO tho judicial system. Its simplicity
should bo preserved. The simplest system
10 the most favorable TO the honest litigant,
and the weaker and moro helpless party.
The interests Of those who should be pro-
tected in litigation arc best protected by
having tho most direct and shortest road
from tho beginning 30 the end Of a law suit.
We now have the simplest and most salts
factory system possible but for the delay.
There is but one step from tho original trial
10 the one appellate court whore the COntro-
versy must end. Give speedy hearing In
the court of last resort, correct the bad dis
tribution OF the trial courts throughout the
state, and our system is the simplest and
most satisfactory that can be made. An In
termediate appellate court means In many
cases a second appeal, and second dose of
attorneys fees and court expenses 10 the
honest litigant who is compelled TO 90 into
court TO s6cure a right or TO resist a wrong
another turn OF the crank in the hands OF
the wealthy litigant and the corporation.
Economy, the public good, the private In
terost Of tho honest litgant call for tho
preservation Of our judicial system in its
present form. The door should be shut
against additional appellate courts by tho
necessary and proper increase Of the su-
preme court.
SUFFICIENT RELIEE CANNOT nm HAD THROUGH
LIMITATION OF APPEALS.
II has been suggested, and by those too
who fully appreciate the public evil and In
dividual hardship of the present condition
Of our supreme court, that perhaps the jur-
isdiCtion Of the court may be cut of 10 such
an extent and appeals 30 far prohibited, as
will reduce the business TO an amount that
can be disposed of by the present court. No
doubt there can be some limitation OF ap-
peals without preiudiCing the important
rights Of any one. But this remedy can not
be pursued too far without injury. So long
as only those small cases are cut of that are
hbigated for spunk, there is no damage; but
In mOritorious cases chat involve an amount
for which men will naturally contend 10 the
eHtont of an appeal, the denial of an appeal
may work injustice. There is but one ap-
peal for cases commenced in Che district
court. When that appeal is denied itigants
must be content with the rulings and de-
olsions Of one man. II the district Judge
should be unjust, unwise or unfair--asi is un-
fortunately sometimes the Case---the inter.
eats Of the litigant should not be left, TO any
very great extent, in the arbitrary power OF
this one man. The right of appeal is a
wholesome check on the trial Judge that the
people will not give up, and which they
ought not 10 give up beyond a reasonable
limit.
The last legislature enacted a limitation
that prevents an appeal from a money iudg-
ment OF less than $l00. This cuts of the
small railroad damage Cases--for killing a
COW or horse, or burning stack OF hay, aud
chat class OF cases that involve nothing but
~. A.. I.A.-.. M IL