The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-06-25
Roe! B Psx5sg,
ABSOLUTELY PURE

abolishing the Court of Chancery. / believe
that court has a stronger hold on the bar to
day than ever before in its history. Flavor
the retention OF the Circuit Courts with
common law jurisdiction and an appeal in
simple form direct to the court of last resort.
II think the judiciary should be appointed
and the judges should hold for a long and
single term, say fifteen years or longer.
Nothing to my mind could SO add to its in
dependence. There hould be some rule to
keep the bench as nearly non-partisen as
possible"
Speaking of the opposition to the abolition
of the Supreme Court with its present juris-
diction, Judge Blair said he favored it, and
added that for those lawyers who appeared
to be welded to the old name of Supreme
Court, the court of last resort might be call
ed the Supreme Court.
Ex-Judge A. Q. Garretson thoroughly be
lieyes in maintaining the Court OF Chancery.
As to the question of the Court of Appeals
he has not given the matter much attention.
However" he said, II think the Court of
Appeals ought to be an independent body.
LAW AND EQUITY MIXTURE A MISTAKE.
Justice William F. Douglass says:-'It
must be apparent to every lawyer that the
mixing of law and equity courts is a mis-
take, and / for one decidedly agree in main
tanning the Court of Chancery. Then as to
the Court Of Appeals, that body should be
separate and distinct. The Court of Ap-
peals should consist. of judges who sit
In no other court. If4awyers of good stand
ing were selected and a good salary was paid
to them l believe it would be a good thing
for our judicature."
Counsellor Max Salinger says:-"I do not
think either the Supreme Court or the Court
of Chancery should lie abolished. The SUI
preme Court Of this State is O model court.
s., is the Court of Chancery. They are
looked up to by the judiciary OF other States
as model courts and never ought to be dis
turbed. The Constitution might make pro
visions whereby decisions could be rendered
in shorter time"
WANTS BOTH COURTS ABOLISHED.
Senator w. D. DAILY said:-''Iam in favor
of the abolition Of the Supreme Court and
the Chancery Court and the creation of
Circuit Courts with equity Jurisdiction and
a Court of Appeals as a court of last resort.
The Appellate Court to review the decisions
should consist of not more than five judges,
who should be counsellors-at-lawt The Cir
cult Court judges to have all the power now
exercised by Supreme Court judges sitting
in Circuit Courts"
WOULD ABOLISH H LAY JUDGES.
Prosecutor Charles H. Winfield would only
say that he is strongly in favor of the
judiciary system remaining as Ii is. he
does not think that the Supreme Court or
Court of Chancery should be abolished.
When | asked him il he approved of the idea
of abolishing the lay judges he replied that
he did with all his heart.
Ex-Judge Thomas +. Noonan said;-"I
favor a Court of Appeals, in the last resort,
at law and in equity, to be composed Of
Judges, none of whom shall be a member of
any other court, and all of whom shall be
lawyers of at least fifteen years practice ut
our Bar, and to be appointed as at present.
l am against lay judges OF law in every case.
In my opinion a lay judge cannot be a judge
of law.
Il favor d Court of Chancery separate and
distinct, as how, from all courts Of law, but
to consist of a sufficient number of vice
chancellors. under the Constitution, and not
merely as advisory masters, as they are now.
to be appointed. as the Chancellor now is. |
am against any judge voting or even con
sulting with the appellate court on an alp.
peal from his own Judgment. l am opposed
to an elective judiciary.