The record-union., 1891-01-14
RELIEF FOR THE SUPREME COURT

We are inclined to concur with a cor
respondent of the San Francisco Bulletin,
who says:
So long as the present class of appealable
cases remains intact, and the mode OF select
ing judiciary unchanged, and so long as APP
peals destitute of merit can be prosecuted
with reasonable hope of ultimate pecuniary
profit to appellants, any effectual plan for the
relief of the Supreme Court seems likely to
remain a desideratua.
Nevertheless, some steps should now be
taken to ascertain whether the Supreme
Court can be so relieved that cases sub
mitted to it can be decided within the
ordinary lifetime of the parties contesting
The diligence of the Supreme Bench
will not be questioned; it is body of
Woodworking men-too hard worked for
the interest of litigants and of pure
justice. We have no right to expect q
bench to send down fawless decisions
that is hard pushed day and night to cor
slider cases, and that by the excess of ap-
peals is kept two and three years in
arrears of its business. Our appellate
Judiciary should have plenty of time in
which to consider appeals, and to calmly,
and without undue mental worry and
struggle to decide issues presented
Appeals will continue to be excessive
so long as so many of the Superior Courts
are composed of weak timber, and it will
be some years before they are bettered
What then shall be done in the present !?
The proposition to reduce the number of
Justices, and to substitute oral arguments
for briefs, cannot be understood by the
layman as relief, though a bar association,
as we understand it, thinks it is. An in
termediate Appellate Court, or two or
three of them, with supervisory review
power in the Supreme Bench, might be
well, and the proposition for such inter
mediate tribunals presents itself strongly.
though the cost would be heavy. But if
the Supreme Court is to review the cases
before the intermediate courts, we cannot.
after all see so much of relief in their
establishment as is claimed. For litigants
would rarely be satisfied with the de-
cision of a lower appellate tribunal, so
long as there was opportunity to carry
the eases to the court of final Judgment.
Another proposition is to organize the
Supreme Court Commission into a court
to increase the Supreme Bench to one of
ten members, with Chief Justice. and
to divide it into two Chief Courts, thus
giving us really three appellate tribunals.
The difficulty would be, as in the plan for
intermediate courts, that there would be
conflicting decisions, and, hence, nearly
all cases would finally go up to the full
Supreme Bench
IL appeals to the Appellate Courts are
to be determined finally according to
the mere amount involved, justice will
not be conserved, since more important
case, but involving small sum, may be
limited to an immediate Appellate Court
while less important case involving
greater values, will go up to the chief
courts.
The appellate system should not be
more complicated, on the contrary it
should be simplified. We have always
thought that the suggestion of Mr.. Justice
Mcfarland, made some years ago i'm the
Overland Monthly, regarding new trials,
would much lessen the labors of the Su-
preme Court. We cannot here reproduce
even an outline of his scheme, but must
be content with saying that it proposes
to remodel the entire system of new
trials and the making up of statements.
so that instead of eases being SO fire.
quenty sent back, the Appellate Court
may upon review of the case prop
eriy sent up, order the proper iude-
ment entered. IL is the belief of Justice
Mcfarland that this would greatly lessen
the appeals taken merely for dilatory pur-
poses.
Perhaps the plan of another writer in
the Bulletin has more virtue than any
other. That is to have two distinct final
courts of five Justices each and Chief
Justice as executive officer. Appeals
should go direct to one or the other of
these courts and by these be finally de-
cided; there would be but one appeal in
any case, and there would be no hearing
in bank, except where the constitutions
ality of a statute is in issue, and in one or
two other cases.
Certainly the subject is one that should
engage instant and earnest attention.
The Supreme Court is overworked, the
Justices break down prematurely, the
calendars are hopelessly in arrears and
htlgation in appeal is upon the increase.
something must be done, therefore, to
discourage dilatory appeals, and lessen
the labors of the bench, that we may have
the abilities of the court better and more
deliberately directed, and to insure the
decision of cases within year Mt the
least, from the perfecting of an appeal.
A RIGHT THING TO DO.
f1,r