New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-03-21
AGAINST THE AMENDMENTS.
THE BAR ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE Pro
TESTS
NOT AGREED WITH THE JUDICIARY coNvES-
TIoN AS TO MEASURES OF RELIEF

NOT AGREED WITH The JUDlCIhhi WV
TON AS TO MEASURES OF RELIEF
The members of the Committee on the Amendment
to the Law of the Bar Association evidently 90 ho'
agree with the members of the judiciary convention
concerning the best methods of relieving the courts
They have expressed themselves in plain language !"
that effect in a report which the committee maze l"
the association at the meeting on March TO- Ihc "
ISOLATION decided to hold special meeting next Iucs
day evening 10 consider the report and discuss ~
fully in connection with the report OF the judiciary
Convention In the committees report the members
say that the amendments propos aisare iar-reaehng
and involve great changes in the entire judiciary e,S
TEN of the STATE. The report continues:
Your committee is not unmindiul that the COM a
mission was composed OF lawyers high standing ana
eminent Abilities and that several OF The most dS
tinguished members of this association were memDGIs
OF The Commission ana yet your committee Is also
mindful of the fact that IL the association me
duty TO have the courage TO express IT, caIeiuip
formed opinion Of the proposals OF the Commission. T.
Ine principal recommendation OF the Commission -
TO place in the Constitution ITSELF provision wnch WIZ
limit the BUSINESS likely to before the Court Oh
Appeals and this it proposes shall DC done by ledNS
the with the same number OF judges as at PIeS
ent but limiting appeals t. certain subjects only 40
appeal 10 the Court of Appeals i permitted IN any cse
in which the General Term altrms without dissent
determination concerning negotiable paper actions io
negligence, libel, SANDER, false imprisonment malicious
prosecution deceit, rcplcvia, injury 10 personal prop
erty divorce and many other subjects, except ny d
a. he General Term in OF it, refusal, by ofuer
OF one OF the Judges of the Court OF Appeals vi,
The existing Constitution OF the state Oh New iV,h
does not define the jurisdiction Of the Court oil "P
pcals its jurisdiction and its limitations are l" nI
found in the code OF Civi Procedure sections "o anu
Even If the mode of limitation proposed by the
Commission is wi,c and would prove Of Va!ne IL ,ch'
10 Us that ii would necessarily BIZ experimental t
Is the true way 10 facilitate the business OF inc uo
experience mlGht SNOW tht II SIOuu Dc w.. 80.
population and wealth Increase the number OF ca
even under thi, scheme must also Increase ana l'tn
some change would have 10 D. made liuh l1c 1
tuition would necessarily require continued dIiciu
ment, II Is true th provision is in rSi u, '% ppc
Legislature MAJ iu,thcr restrict me rEh' % "phi
to the Court Of APPEAL bat II our YIN I'M, WIZ
be tried. arc fully persuaded that 1t should IT, n
auguraed in the same manner a the rc'eh, , ,td
statute to relieve the supreme Court 0i the 'nUu
states, viz, by es-lat9n which can De 1i.'dg"
necessity arise. ana not 10y constitutional 1
Your committee. also. with great respect o" the ,"l
which have at different times been suggested Tor Is
relief OF the Court Of Appeals. the mode r., omncGua
by the Commission is the one least c!icuSTa 10 S.
Satisfaction either to ltigants or to the lcGaI ppt
sion The present system % nali ',,,aiir he
cause Of the danger of conflict in decisions any w
natural reluctance TO temporary court ana ye, It
the great advantage that al least All id.r,
can be reviewed By court free from o''l oo"''"''"
The suggestion has been made Of having court
Of Appca~ composed of more judge, 50 alIAletu -
TO ii continually. but in which each ludSc snal III
ahOut the same number OF uiNe ta, "' "a Lelie,e
lie present Court of Appeals now 40 we,
rrer,mmcndod hv the Commission. Whilc IN ti'
opinion of Your committee. 1t is worry uW'c !" Hnl,
ca nS and leave out other classes which are equally
important and in which the peFtchlass o.. Ui ~ te|
Ii Il
Commissions scheme which, in our OPINION are c'''
NOR '%al in any case may be allowed by
the General Term. or in any case Of us tr'u-a Nv
any Judge ~ the Court OF Appeals. 49, 90,
We do not think that an app al -hoHid bs lir
another-nol do we think me time OF ine |Iu., pl
catops Ia allow appeals n seem. 10 MS tlai 'l,I
a provision would entail additional duue9 on U .
Of the very object Of the whole scheme oil id. '''"s
their labor~. 49,, . ,,,- c,r an
,rn =, where Inc determination de ailcS u mater
que, ton Of law which stands o'her"i'e oS'''"''
by the General Term Of the supreme tour .
We think this clause must HE" r1 T 10 vision
amount " uncertainty and trouble. liS i1ind1
refers 10 the Judgment order. or whether tH'I
opinion can be looked into, and II no opinion Is &c
amined and who under such a provision can say
what is what Is not appeaabe.
The provisions concerning the General Term o Wv
supreme Court are generally approved. with the io'
lowing exceptions:
section : provides: "No Justice of The General
Term shall exercise any ol ape P'"G' 81 II 1u'',
The General Term oi which Dee j. member.
We arr not aware ANY rrason based on experience
LOT An y amrHdmcnt propa>d Iy tie commission 10 see
ton - is 80 Judge or ~ -tl'r "Iu ,''" ,rr
~ach compen ;atiou VIZ, salary for remainder % ms
term if he ha- served ten y'ar,l alter te "a, uaS
..c- Iour committee 3, OF the opinion ihAt u,
Constitution a. II no" stands j., WoiIi, nr t', NAV
iarly receive his salary for The rmaindc' q" III
.... 90
by tle "1mm.- lon 30 section ~. W., NOT 'li" 1l
judicial officer accept from any person OF '"I''1""'
ircc transportation Tor himself 81 any member "i '
family oyCr the I'm, Of any common Garner. ~ NV
Judgment 81 your committee IL is very uhd-hlnr" l'
IN. Great STATE If New York 70 insert any 'u'h I''
vision in IT, organic law D., 49,. O..
The scheme OF the Commission ID rei'Fll,. !"
with unlmpOrt,ut notifications concerning lhc ~,
position Of The judge, nog comporine that court i!S
committee think. That the jude should De ailp"'n
10 serve ont the terms for which they Wrrr ci'uu'
The committee approves The plan "a relieve t' 'urIp
rote's Court In thl, county with the cA,epuoh bld'
il thinks that it -houi1 be- done by Icsi'lIlVc '"'''
mont and not by Constitutional amendment .,
The report is signed hy Gcprec l.. l."nhcy, urnl
DE Forc.t BALDWIN. David Wilcox William VI lNin''
G".pha. urlincrd Charles H. Knox, George Putnam
smith William Mitchcand David lict lure. NrM'' iur
add. a notc IN which he SAYS that he d, opp'e'n ~
giving the Lcgslaturc power 10 abolish the tohrt Oh
Cannon Pleas.