The record-union., 1891-01-15
SUPREME COURT RELIEF.
An Increase in the Number of Jus
tices is Not Approved Of.
A Correspondent Who Suggests Addi.
tional Courts of Separate Jurisdic-
tion as the Proper Solution.

EDS. REcoRD-UNIoN: In your issue of
to-day l find your editorial on '.Relief
for the Supreme Court There is GER
tainly nothing of more importance to the
people of this State than the provision OF
means to enable the courts to clear their
calendars as rapidly as the provisions of
the code viii permit. and this without
reference to the number OF causes.
| have read many suggestions as to
modes of relief, and think the most OBJ
jcctionable are the three that seem to have
the most advocates, viz:
First-Io increase the number Of Judges,
OF the Supreme Court.
Second-A commission.
TLird-IiiInit the appellate jurisdiction
by the amount i'll controversy
That the fist two VIII not accomplish
the purpose experience has shown, not
only here but i'll other States. Increasing
the nanibcr Of inen 10 whom Il PROPOSE
ton may be submitted simply adds 10
the delay. Tho creation OF uc,}artlpail;,; :;
or separate courts With concurrent jufis.
diction results III eoiiiiutilig opinions and
IS productive % petitions tor reile;,rilig III
bank. and those petitions mus: be at
tented 10 whether the reilcaring be
grallted or not. Petitions ior reAeariiig,
where such practice is Jernitted or nee
csstry, will be indiigeu in whether The
opinion be by Il Judge or Commissioner;
end with all due resi- Get To the bosiy OF
able men who constitute the present COM
mission, there is Il widespread aversion
TO having causes disposed Of at second
liands.
With respect to limiting the appellate
jurisdiction by the amount III contro-
IN rot -
any satisfactory arrangement.
The courts are not constituted to decide
matters OF money as such, but are organ
lGcd To determine the rights of people, re-
gardless o., the financial aspect; and \
sl;in Insignificant To one, is life itself to
another. and no provision should DC
made that has for its object the creating
OF one tribunal for the rich and anetiiel.
for the poor; and the power to make such
q provision may well be doCbted
the creation OF two or more distinct
conlts with concurrent Jurisdiction is
certainly impraeticalAe for the reason
given, 4. G.: that conflicting opinions are
sure to he promulgated, and provision
Tor conference in such cases would defeat
the object aimed at. That conflicting
opinions win be made is undoubted.
Ihe plan that commends itself 10 my
mind, is plan practicable and free, from
the Objectionable features Of all the above
mentioned suggestions. It is one Great
ing tive, or, if necessary, three or more
courts OF appeal or Supreme Courts, with
three judges to each and separate juris-
dictions. Thus: One court to try all
questions Involving the title to property
as such; questions involving the cGn-
struction OF contracts with respect To al
kinds OF property not otherwise provided
for, intending thereby to include what
is ordinarily termed civil business The
n IA vol xrn
as to all cases embraced in the Act Great
ing such court. Another court with iuris-
dIction over all criminal cases; questions
OF taxation and all extraordinary RENE
dies, such as quo aca'Tanto; injunction
cases, where the object sought was simply
the restraining OF an act not connected
with actions involving interest i'll or titles
to property as such, and matters relating
solely to probate or insolvency cases.
Statistics rs to the proportion of case of
the different classes can be obtained from
the Supreme Court Reports and in the
office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court,
so that in the first organization of such
courts the jurisdiction Of each could be so
arranged that the division of work would
be fair
The constitutional amendment author
iZing the creation of such courts would
provide for the division of jurisdiction,
and creation of additional courts by tho
Jcs, lSlului Z dts lllc lIlCfCJSc Ol population
and business made it necessary. Also
give the Legislature power to redistr;bute
the different subjects by transferring
from one court to another upon the dis
covery of 4 preponderance OF business in
one of the courts. The subjects TO be
transferred to be of a character most
| nearly akin to those heretofore possessed
by the court to which such transfer is
made, thus preserving the equilibrium of
business.
With this plan there would be no con-
| fiicting decisions. The work of each
court would then be submitted to three
men, the least number, that then always
decide one way on another.
There is sufficient distinction in differ
ent classes of litigation to make a clear,
fair and efiectual division of the business,
and the expense of three such courts
would not exceed the cost OF the present
organization in this State. But in deter
mining the right to life, liberty and prop
erty, the question OF expense, though
important, is a secondary consideration.
l have endeavored to go over the situa-
ton without indulging in argument, and
have been as brief as possible for me, and
l trust that during the present session of
the Legislature steps will be taken that
will afford practical relief in this direc-
ton. Respectfully,
L. T. HATFIELD.
Sacramento jan Ii 1901