The record-union., 1892-02-13
LOCATION OF THE SUPREME
COURT


court ought to be located permanently at
the State Capital if for no other reason
than those of economy, and these reasons
the RECORD UNION will present in dis
tinct article.
In the fitness of things the Capitol
building should be the seat of the chief
tribunal of the State, as is the rule prac-
tically in all the other States. There is
room for it in the Capitol, two excellent
courtrooms being provided. But if the
demands of the court and the expansion
of the State Library now or soon will re-
quire it, it will be economy to construct
the necessary addition to the building, a
probability contemplated from the time
the structure was planned.
The law library of the State is in the
Capitol, and there too should be located
the library of the Supreme Court for rea-
sons of economy and convenience. In
both a geographical and transportation
view Of the matter the Capital is the CEN
from all directions. 1t is said, however,
that the convenience of litigants is best
conserved by the location at San Fran
cisco. AS a matter of fact that location is
counter TO the policy of the law, which
discourages litigation. The court at San
Francisco actually encourages litigation.
10 hof n -
pealed in San Francisco that never should
be, and that serve to overload the calen-
dars and cripple the usefulness of the
court, simply because it can be done
cheaply and easily. The policy of the
law is that litigants should pay the cost
of the litigation; but the practice, with the
court in San Francisco and with fugitive
sessions in Sacramento and Los Angeles,
creates an enormous expense for taxpay-
ers all over the State for the benefit of lit
igants. Every shyster in San Francisco
who has tupenny case in hand, flatters
his client that he can delay judgment by
an appeal, and in most cases it is done.
= LIS 10 VIZ n4IulSpuISu IeStllnOuy O1 IQ0
record.
With the court at the Capital seven
tenths of these San Francisco cases will
not be appealed, and the work of the
court viii be greatly lessened, with con-
sequent benefit to the whole State and TO
the litigants who do come before the ap-
loft AriH Al 4
between three points is bad for the court
aside from all considerations of the enor-
nous cost to the taxpayers. The Justices
by such travel are very heavily handi-
capped in their labors; the change, move
ment and friction of chasing about in a
considerable degree unsettles them, and
is antagonistic to deliberation and thor
oughness OF study and research. Upon
this we think the Judges, if they could be
induced to speak, would be unit in ex-
preston.
1t is admitted by those who have given
the matter thought, and they embrace
those who have served upon the bench,
greater quiet and leisure and removal
from the turmoil of a great city and the
social calls upon the time of the Justices,
would be able more rapidly and salts
factorily to discharge its business and
better deliberate upon the questions sub
mitted to it. We do not doubt that if the
Justices of the present bench were not
restrained by feelings of delicacy from
expressing themselves they would be
found to favor the permanent location of
the court at the State Capital.
The plea in favor of the court at San
Francisco is advanced that it aceommo-
dates large number of attorneys. But
this is not tolerable excuse. The con-
venience of the interior bar should be of
greater consideration, since it must travel
long distances. Moreover, the people at
large should not be financially punished
to accommodate the private business of
any class of men. The true rule is to
keep in view efficiency, fitness and econ
omy in locating the court. That the court
will be better able to clear its calendars
and remove the reproach of long delay, if
located in the Capital, we have held, and
it is an opinion shared by the court itself,
we are informed; the Capital is the fit
place of all others for the court, by reason
of the character of the body, as already
stated; economic policy demands the
cutting down of the enormous expense
for three clerks offices, three sets of court
rooms, extra clerical assistance to the
court, etc., and thus the three things to
govern judgment in this matter unite to
support our proposition.
In expressing reasons for the perma.
nent location of the Supreme Court at the
State Capital, we shall not expect to es-
cape the assault upon motive-it is al
ways the resort of the Incorporate and
selfish in debate. All State Capitals are
made the targets for such assaults; they
are constantly liable to be classed as pen
sioners or State dependents. The gross
mind appears to be incapable of under.
standing that no matter where aCapital is
located it cannot be wholly delocalized
and hence the response of selfish interest
would apply precisely as well to one
place as another. Were it dignifed OF
decent, the same kind of an argument
could be advanced against the retention
of the court at.San Francisco.