Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-07-27
THE AMENDMENT
To the Article of the Constitution Relating
to the Judiciary.

To the Article of the Constitution Relating
to the Judiciary.
Editor Gazette
In accordance with my purpose and plan,
as stated in my last paper. | shall now call
attention to few other defects in the eX-
listing judicial article, and show how the
proposed amendment will cure them.
1t was not great while after the adop-
ton of the constitution of 1876 until it was
seen that the supreme court could not pos
sibly decide the cases appealed to that court
as rapidly as they accumulated; indeed, it
was not long before the court was far be-
hind in its work. Something had to be done
to relieve the overcrowded supreme court
docket, but the lawmakers were con-
fronted with the infexible judicial article
of the constitution providing for only two
appellate tribunals, the supreme court and
court of appeals, each, as fixed by the con-
stitution, consisting of only three judges.
lmpelled by necessity, the legislature
created a tribunal called the commission of
appeals, but on account of the constitutional
impeachment, this third court could decide
only such cases as should be referred TO 1t
by the supreme court. and its decisions
could become the law only upon being
adopted by the supreme court. Such adop-
ton pre-supposes some kind of examination
and consideration of the decisions adopted,
but the supreme judges having their minds
pre-occupied with cases pending before
them, have not been able to beStOw upon
the opinions of the commissioners such at
tention as has been requisite to consistency
OF decision. Indeed, if any court must ex-
anime with the view to adop-
ton as its own the decisions
OF another tribunal, the labor required
in reading the record and investigating the
authorities is but little less than is neceS-
sary TO be bestowed upon the decision of
-k,. Il
be given by the supreme court to the con-
sideration of the opinions of the commits
sion of appeals. the latter would largely
fan to accomplish the purpose OF its crea-
ton, namely, to aid in diminishing the SUI
preme court docket. Considering the i'm
perfect examination that the supreme court
from necessity must give the opinions of
the commissioners, it is no matter for sur
prise that we frequently find decisions of
the commissioners adopted by the supreme
court in conflict with decisions made by the
latter court in cases decided by them orig
inally. Sometimes the supreme court is
driven to say that in a certain case IL
adopted the conclusion and not the reason
ing of the commission. 1t is almost need
less to remark that it is the reasoning of
a court that imparts value TO its decisions
as precedents, and that the publication of
the opinions of court should, unless the
reasoning in Them is to be regarded, be in
hibited lest they prove a snare to entrap
even the wary. We have almost always
had lawyers of recognized ability and learn
ing on the commission of appeals, and yet
we should be less than candid if we did not
say that it has failed to give satisfaction to
the bar or the public. 1t was in obedience
to strong popular demand that the legiS-
lature was moved to propose and submit to
a vote of the people the amendment under
discussion: tand it is well known
that nothing contributed more to the crea-
ton of the demand than the discomfort to
which the want of consistency between the
decisions of the supreme court and those of
the commission of appeals had given origin.
Another objection to the existing article
grows out of the fact that the court of APP
peals has both civil and criminal jurisdic-
ton. When shat article was incorporated
in the constitution the feature just pointed
out was not especially Objectionable, for at
that time nearly all of our Leading lawyers
did both d civil and criminal practice. Since
that time, however, in view of the unpar-
alleled development of the country and the
consequent increased volume of litigation,
there has occurred Il division of our law
yerS into civil and criminal, so that to-day
lawyer who does an extensive practice in
the one branch wholly neglects the other.
To this there are but few exceptions.
Naturally man who devoteS himself eX-
clusively to the one kind of practice cannot
be learned in the other. Hence we have
reached period in our history at which we
cannot expect to find properly equipped
judges for the court of appeals, which has
both civil and criminal jurisdiction.
Having indicated some of the defects in
the existing judicial article, as it relates TO
the courts of last resort, let us now exam
inc the proposed SandoconSider
its superiority, in respect to the matter be-
ing discussed, over the existing article. The
amendment prescribes that appellate juris
dictiUn in the last resort shall be vested
in d supreme court, in courts of civil ap-
peals and in court of criminal appeals. 4
The supreme court shall have appellate
jurisdiction co-eXtenSive with the limits of
the state of questions of law arising in
those cases of which the courts of civil APP
peals shall have appellate jurisdiction, and
in which the judges of any court Of civil
appeals may disagree, or where the several
courts of civil appeals may hold differently
on the same question of law, or where a
statute of the state is held void. The legis-
lature shall as soon as practicable after the
adoption of the amendment divide the state
into not less than two nor more than three
supreme judicial districts. and thereafter
into such additional districts as the in
crease of business and population may re-
quire, and shall establish for each district
a court of civil appeals. Each court ofcivil
appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction CO.
extensive with the limits of its district of
all civil cases of which the district or
county courts have original or appellate
jurisdiction, under such restrictions and
regulations as may be prescribed by law;
and the decision by said court OF civil APP
peals shall be conclusive on all questions of
fact that may be brought before it on APP
peal or error. The court of criminal APP
peals shall have appellate jurisdiction CO.
extensive with the limits of the state of all
criminal cases of whatever grade, with such
exceptions and under such regulations as
may be prescribed by law. Each of sad
courts shall consist of three judges.
In specifying the points wherein the ex-
listing article is defective, considered with
reference to uniformity of decision, we
have shown that the decisions of the SUI
preme court and those of the court of ap-
peals as now constituted are upon some
questions ipciyil matters irreconciliably con- |
tiicting, and that as neither court can re-
wise and correct the decisions of the other, |
the conflict must remain. 1t is obvious that |
this evil will be remedied if the amendment |
is adopted, because the amendment pro- |
vides that the court of criminal appeals |
shall have only criminal Jurisdiction, and it |
makes the supreme court higher court |
than the courts of civil appeals, with power |
to revise and correct their decisions in so |
far as may be necessary to avoid or cure the |
evil mentioned.
We also showed in displaying the defects |
of the existing system the contrariety of |
decision resulting from the existence of the |
of appeals, and from the rela |
ton it sustains to the supreme court, viewed |
with regard to the duties now incum bent /
upon the supreme court. If the amend |
ment simply offered US courts of civil APP |
peals, whose decisions could become the |
law only upon their being adopted by the |