New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-04-09


Tribune presents herewith the views of
NO well-known men on seVeral important queS-
s''"e rhicb Will come before the Constitutional
o,,ion next month. number OF interviews
n,,ent lawyers were published in this paper
"' ,,,v and the present ones are further con-
N 'S'.,on 70 subjects which of the highest i'm
-..,ce 70 the citizens Of the State. The firS
~. ~ questions which was propounded relates
=. changes in the judiciary or the STATE anu
" whether the Court Of Appeals should be
o,.an,zed whether the nature Of the general
w.. &C intermediate appellate courts should
.,snred. whether the Common Pleas. Superior
c,nrome courts OF this city should continue
90 separate general terms. whether the Com
pleas or Superior Court. both of them,
"s.r,1 be abolished. whether the City Court OF
~.,,york should be made constitutional court
:, uhether the system Of referees should De
TAXATION PROBLEMS.
=. -s,ation 10 taxation the problems suggested
-. sboud personal taxes be abolished? Should
~ svsten of exemptions be modified or radically
.,orged? Should real estate taxes be on lana
Sa,rss exclusive of improvements? IT may be
..oa that the answers indicate a widespread
'..,,rent in favor Of doing away with personal
~, and as bearing heaviest on estates which can
49,. ,eas, afford TO pay them The views OF
49,, George on taxation are given as repre-
ling the extreme position on the subject
cr11rr JUSTICE DALY'S WORDS.
c,,e, Justice DAILY. Of the Court Of Common
pleas with great courtesy prepared a paper CIV
,,r his views on the questions concerning the
,sc,a-v This will doubtless be read with great
,,,s-sst by lawyers and by persons VINO employ
,hem Judge DAYS associates OF the court ex-
,,ssssa their appreciation of these opinions
n.,,ch therefore stand as the judgment OF the
,,t-s court Judge DAILY gave his views as ioi-
lows: u.o-c,,,,o
r,are seers 10 be no necessity for reorganiza-
,o, ~ the judicial system of the state. which mas
~, a., o,era,ion since the last Constitutional Con-
,,o, NJ 1865 That body composed OF the best
.,vers and most eminent citizens or the STATE,
,,se,rved the general judicial system as they louu
. with additions adapted 10 the increasing business
q, the courts and provisions securing the ihuepei'u
.S5cca O, the State judiciary; and the WISDOM Vi
,a,r course Is attested by the successful ana mar"
ron,ous working of the system for quarter OF a
,rr, Nothing but q love Of novelty could ex-
o nronositions for radical change at this time
yo.cbance is demanded by the people NO change
sngges,ed that would not deprive the people OF
,s,ac,sras which they now possess and involve the
practice Of the law in confusion and expense. Inc
rseested changes will be referred to in detail
With respect 10 relieving the Court OF Appears
,.,.,dsr I do not see WHY should not nave
,acord division OF the Court of Appeals. whenever
,eoured by the present court. for the dispatch OF
accumulated cases such second division 70 continue
during the pleasure Of the Court of Appeals per-
manent second division would not serve any eoou
purpose The temporary second DIVISION might DE
organized in the same manner as that "h'" was
constituted few years ago.
As N the proposition TO abolish the general terms
the several courts and create in their place
number Of Courts OF Appeal: This Is novelty WIN
little 10 recommend II and much to be ureeo
against H. The innovation would create an entirely
new judicial system and would affect more than
the mere hearing Of appeals. The wise forethought
Of the founders Of judicial system has given the
ueope choice OF tribunals that is to say separate
Independent courts Of coordinate jurisdiction so
that lawyers and litigants may select any one OF
several forums in which 10 prosecute their rights
according 10 their conviction OF safeiy ana
seedy justice. The only way TO secure the neces-
my Independence TO the several tribunals Is 10
reserve 10 them the power to control their own
decisions until they are reviewed by the Court or
Appeals the court OF last resort in the state where
all qaestions Of law settled. but where 'he
sound discretion OF the several tribunals Is not IN
tsrfeed WITH as II might. might not be, by the
proposed tribunals according 10 the powers con-
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS.
The Institution Of intermediate Appellate Courts
would disarrange the whole judicial constitution ana
the whole body OF the law relating TO the question
Of discretion alone And what would be gained?
The number Of such appellate tribunals would nave
to be equal 70 the number OF the present general
terms in order to dispatch the present appellate
business The number Of judges employed IN near
Ing appeals would have 10 be the same; and u the
la. m mo O.
Of other than the judges of the present courts
then the number Of appeal Judges in the State
would have 10 be largely increased for " the pres
en-, judges relegated the sole duty OF trying
causes and the ratio Of appeals continues the
appellate tribunals will have to be doubled. NO
necessity for such a prodgious increase IN the )u-
dical forces exists.
But II that innovation Is abandoned then It Is
asked whether We ought not to have 'consolida-
non OF the present general terms Let ne see
We have at present nine general terms in the state;
I'VE In the Supreme curt and one each In the
Common Pleas and Superior courts OF New-forK
the City Court Of Brooklyn and the Superior Court
OF Buffalo. speak only OF those whose decisions
are reviewed directly by the Court Of Appeals.
These general terms perform vast amount or
WORK In hearing appeals and no consolidation "ouid
lessen the work But one reason is urged for II:
IT'S said that conflicting decisions may result from
70 many general terms. This Is groundless FEAR
conflicts arc extremely rare. and besides. to AVOID
conflicts, you would have to abolish ali the general
terms but one. and that is impossible. for one would
not be equal to the labor. But suppose there are
conflicts: they finally disposed OF by the Court
OF Appeals which reviews all the general terms.
ana there is no harm done on the contrary the
examination OF question b. many tribunals
F" OF the greatest assistance to the Court OF last
resort
The advocates OF consolidation. for the purpose OF
preventing diversity OF opinion really advocat-
ing me shutting on OF discussion-the worst thins
ha' could happen for the law. Besides. II all the
general terms were consolidated into one. IT would
moi prevent conflict OF opinions; the Judges. OF
won there would necessarily be many, who could
ho' all sit together would certainly express. occa
"'haly at least dissenting opinions, and there
'u nave the mischief you wish TO prevent. SO fan
a. the city OF NewYork is concerned. II you have
separate and independent courts, it Is essential tC