The record-union., 1891-01-18
SUPREME COURT CHANGES.
A Well Advised Correspondent Gives
His Views.
The Court Not So Badly Behind-Un.
wisdom OF Radical Changes in
Judicial Systems.

EDS. SUNDAY UNION: In your editorial
| OF the 14th about the Supreme Court
(Which, on the whole, is a fair one) you
are excusably led astray as TO facts by GER
tain newspaper correspondents, when
| you say that the court should be so re-
lieved that cases submitted to it can be
decided within the ordinary lifetime of
the parties contesting.' From this Ian
gaage an ordinary reader would under
stand that after q case. gets into the Su-
preme Court it is not disposed of for, at
least, several years. And this is the i'm
preston made by most Of the newspaper
communications on the subject. Let us
| look Tor moment at the facts.
The Supreme Court has nothing to do
with case until it gets there by the filing
OF transcript on appeal. Whatever de-
lay there may have been in the trial
court, through the consent, or neglience,
or Incidence of attorneys, or otherwise,
does not form any part of any delay
which may occur i'll the Supreme Court.
| Now for the purpose of Supreme Court
business the State is divided into three
| districts: the Sacramento, the Los An
| geles, and the San Francisco Districts.
| The first includes about twenty eight
! counties, in the San Joaquin and
Sacramento Valleys, and the north
ern and Sierra foothill counties, up
| to the Oregon line; the second the ex-
treme southern counties; and the third,
San Francisco and the counties around
| the bay. The Sacramento and Los An
geles Districts may be dismissed from
consideration; for in those districts the
court is up with the business. There are
two terms year in each of said districts;
| n al ,,.h 1
transcript has been filed forty days before
| the term commences, goes on the calen-
| dar, and is decided, If counsel are ready
to submit it, within about ninety days,
or sooner. Occasionally case, owing
to disagreement in department has to
go into bank, which takes a little longer;
| but the rule is as above stated.
The only delay which can be COM
| planned of is in the San Francisco Dis
| trict, where the court started in under the
new Constitution with from 500 to 900
old cases, handed down to it by the old
court. In this district, four years ago,
the court was nearly three years behind.
AT the present time it cannot be fairly
said to be, at the farthest, more than
year and half behind; because the pres
ent January calendar contains all the
cases in which the transcripts were filed
up to October, 1889, and the cases on the
present calendar will be disposed of. as a
rune, Nlluil 1IlbIlInS OI InGlr SUBJ
mission. And yet the court during the
last four years has had greater difficulties
TO contend with than are likely to arise
soon again. There was an unusual
amount OF sickness during that time
among the Justices. The late Chief jus
tlce Morrison was too i'll for work for
several months before his death; Justice
! Sharpstein was sick for some time.
although he is well now; and Justice
Temple was unable to do work for an
entire year before his resignation. There
We're also great many short terms, which
| hinders business; because when jus
tice goes out, there are nearly always
cases left which he heard, and which
| particularly in department = must he
heard over again. Many difficult con-
stitutional questions We're also disposed
of in that time; and it must be remem-
| bered that the number of cases which
came into the court from 1880 to 1899
were nearly twice as many as from 1870
! to 1880, and that opinions under the pres
ent Constitution must be written in every
case. Now the Justices are all well; they
have comparatively long terms before
them; many difficult questions have
been settled; and it is fair to presume
that in two or three years longer the
court will be up with the business in the
San Francisco, as it is in the other dis
tricts.
| Under these circumstances is it wise to
undertake, at the present time, to enter
upon experiments with new appellate
courts, the appropriate jurisdiction of
which no correspondent has been able to
so define as to prevent inextricable con-
| fusion? judicial systems should never
be radically changed until thorough trials
have demonstrated their insufficiency;
and considering the above facts, it seems
that, for the present at least, the best
thing to do with our system of courts is to
| let it alone.
An amendment giving the court dis
cretion as to writing opinions when iudg-
ments are affirmed would add greatly to
the dispatch of business; but lawyers
have always fought that proposition.
Sacramento, January 10th. LEX.