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

city means practically one court no matter what
you may call the tribunals OF first instance.
for the decisions OF the latter would Immediately
controlled by II; while the Supreme. Common
| Pleas and Superior courts are only controlled by
| the Court Of Appeals. practical difficulty lies in
the way OF consolidation Of general terms in this
city; there are nine general terms held in the Su-
| preme Court. nine In the Common Pleas and FIVE
| in the Superior. A single general term continuously
in session could not dispose Of all this business.
CONSOLIDATION or COURTS
The most attractive novelty" proposed in respect
| u judiciary changes is that OF consolidation OF
! courts in the city OF New-York. There is ex-
offered for 1t except that It would remove ali
questions Of il rlsdiction in these courts. As
| shall presently see, line two Of addition to the
present judiciary article will effect that improve
ment and leave the public and the bar their pres
ent choice OF tribunals-an advantage not to be
rendered except for the Fravest reasons The pres
ent system by which have three independent
courts of equal jurisdiction in the city OF New
York viz the Supreme. the Common Pleas and the
Superior Court Is the outcome Of the social com
mereal and political growth Of the metropolis and
the fruit Of over half a century OF experience. The
Common Pleas. the oldest tribunal In the State. and
existing under different names for $50 years,
was last reorganzed under It's present title in 1921
The Superior Court was created in 1896. and the
Supreme Court. from time to time regulated by
different Constitutions. was instituted as We now
have II in lsT.
Upon the Common Pleas and Superior courts sue
cesslve Legislatures have heapcd additional jurs-
diction and power In order to make them equal to
the Supreme Court until the final declaration OF
equality enacted In 1873 pursuant TO the Con
sttution 1869 which continued them with all their
powers and such further jurisdiction as the Legs-
lature might confer. This creation OF three sepa-
rate courts in the great city Of New-York was due
TO the conviction that tho conflicting interests OF
its vast Industries should not be subjected to
/ nferht ont lrtl
be swayed by overpowering influences. That this
was wise provision the history OF a little over
twenty years attests-when the Common Pleas
was a haven OF refuge for lawyers and htigants
fleeing from other tribunals, until confidence was
restored by the thorough publication Of local poll
tics The independence of the court was then re
garded of inestimable value. and no consdera-
stion ever urged by the advocates OF consolidation
has suficed TO outweigh the public service then
rendered by an independent tribunal. and which
separate tribunals alone can secure.
or course it is TO be hoped and expected that such
a contingency may never again arise; but there Is
certainly way to make its recurrence impos-
sble and that is by preserving the separation ana
Independence Of the New York courts. That the bar
desires the continuance OF the present system Is
demonstrated by the increase OF the business IN the
Common Pleas which is compelled to hold nine
general terms a year Che same number held by
the Supreme Court In order dispose Of its appeal
cases: and whose published opinions. In proportion
10 the number OF its judges. outnumber those OF
every court in the State, including the supreme
Court and the Court OF Appeals over two thou-
sand cases are annually brought in 1t. fact suffi-
Client 10 set at rest the question whether the par
and suitors exercise the preference OF tribunals
which the present system allows them but one
thing IL needed-for the coming constitutional Con
venton TO confirm the act OF the Legislature IN
1873 comforting Jurisdiction equal TO the supreme
Court with he provso OF course. that the local
hclI hoir
spective cities and not elsewherel-and the benefit
which this community now derives from us ihde-
pendent courts will be complete.
4 MEASURE IN THE LAST LEGISLATURE
While upon this subject II may not be out OF
place to notice a measure which was secretly pro-
PEELED through the last Legislature. and which was
intended as an attack upon the Independence OF
the Common Pleas and Superior courts. IT not only
aimed TO abolish them. but did not even attempt
10 consolidate them with the Supreme Court; but
gave a monopoly OF judicial power to the latter
tribunal. and degraded the judges OF the common
Pleas and Superior Court to the condition OF pup
nets 10 be moved at It's will This vindictive meas
ure easily passed through the secret channeis OF
the last Legislature. which did not even give
hearing TO lawyers. litigants or judges upon hs
rather revolutionary provisions but as the measure
requires the consent Of the present Legislature anu
an ultimate submission to popular vote. there Is not
much fear that It's ignorance and feebleness VIII
not he tborou~hly exposed Its effect was not only
secretly 10 rob the people OF two OF their courts
hut 10 deprive them Of the effective judicial ala
Of q dozen Of their highest Judges at one blow.
This whole subject Of the consolidation or the
courts in New-York city was considered by the
lac, Constitutional Convention. and IT, was deemed
,e,enre ~ publlc safety TO divide judicial powers
among different tribunals. The wisdom OF this con
clusion was demonstrated within two years after
II was reached. It was. however. at that time sug-
gested as a possibility that the Supreme court
might ultimately absorb all the business. and that
| f., would need more Judges. This necessity. II II
ever arose was provided for: The Legislature was
authorized TO provide for detailing one or more
| Judges from the Common Pleas and Superior Courts
| 10 hold Circuits and Special Terms OF the Supreme
Cour, in this city the public interests may re-
ouire" That system still exists. Whenever the
LAWYERS and litigants shall express their prefer
ence for the Supreme Court over the other courts
nv bringing all their suits In IT, the Judges OF the
other courts will detailed 10 ofiiciate In the Su
| preme Court and consolidation VIII be practically
| accomplished-yet leaving the Common Pleas and
Superior Courts intact that they may be resorted
| 10 II necessity requires.
BUSINESS IN TIE COMMON PLEAS.
Put after twenty-five years. of the experiment the
| har and the community have not desired consohha-
| zion More suits are now commenced in the Com
| mon Pleas than ever before: many that II has
never been able to spare an additional Judge 10 'he
Supreme Court, and urgently needs the one VINO
has been for years detailed there contrary 10 'hc
interests OF his own court The convention or 1863
! found the Common Pleas with but three judges
| and increased the number TO six in the belief that
| the public demand for Independent separate
| courts IN New-York. The current OF business that
| Immediately Sc: in TO the Common Pleas. and which
| Is now greater than ever confirms this view want
~ acquaintance with these facts must account Tor
an, coun,enance being given by thoughtful practl-
TONERS 10 the proposition for destroying indep ndeh'
| courts. . 60. -,
| Az to the question OF making the city court OF
| New-York Constitutional Court. am III iaVor OF
intrerchlng the city Court and every court ]" '"c
| constitution so that the judges. high ana io" may
| 1850. irLi.rnrdence In the eXercise OF