The record-union., 1895-02-06
The Third JudSeShip.

EDS. RECORD-UNION: In his commune
cation Of the 9th inst. to your paper, "B.
Abe" manifests the same want of knowI-
edge of the subject upon which he writes,
viz: the necessity of an additional Judge
of the Superior Court OF this county-as
is manifested by the taxpayers of whom
he speaks, and who are opposed TO the
bill now pending in the Legislature pro-
viding for such Judge.
|, too, am taxpayer, and am as
strongly opposed TO saddIing an unneces-
sary expense upon our people aud upon
myself as is any other taxpayer. l am in
favor of curtalhng every county expense
consistent with good government, and
for that reason | am most empnatically in
favor of the passage Of the said bill
l know, as does every taxpayer who
has taken the trouble to inform himself
upon the subject, that an additional
Judge for our county would be q saving
to taxpayers, TO say nothing of the ne
cessity for such an office. 1t is claimed
that an additional Judge would entail a
coss Of about 5000 year for his salary,
the salaries Of an extra Deputy Clerk and
Sheriff, ETC.; but II this is so, an additional
Judge would save to The taxpayers OF the
county many thousand dollars in excess
OF this sum.
y careful estimate of the time occupied
by tigants-esp pecially those who reside
without the city-in waiting with their
witnesses days, and sometimes weeks,
and having their cases continued from
time to time, each continuance imposing
upon them a heavy Expense in addition
to the damage to their business resulting
from absence theretrOm, entails losses
and expenses far in excess of the eX-
pense that would result from the creation
ofanother Judgeship.
But this is not all. Ifthe taxpayers
~ 4 q nph ,T,
when jurymen are permitted, under
oath, to show cause why they should not
serve, and could hear our BEST citizens
and taxpayers testify TO the great damage
that would result to their business if they
were required TO serve on juries, and to
wait anQ report from day to daY 10 the
court while awaiting the termination of
trials which crowd the caleuders, thew
would at once see how very much less ex-
pensive would be an additional Judge
1t Is only because they (the taxpayers
who are opposing this bill do not under
stand that it is for their own interests
that we should have another Judge that
they protest; and II they will take the
trouble to ascertain the facts. there will
be no more opposition to this Dill. [ have
talked with a number who have signed a
emOnstraHce against the enactment of
the law, each one of whom said that
had they understood the facts as they
were satisfied they existed after 1 had
made the explanation to them they never
would have signed.
l showed 10 one taxpayer his mistake
in opposing this bill, when he admitted
his error, said his partner had been cir
Culatlng remOnStrance for signatures
but that he would be ashamed OF himself
when he found oat his error, which he
would do.
The passage OF this bill would be in no
sense any beneht 10 the lawyers, for not
one of them was ever known to max O anv
reduction on his fees because his client
| had incurred great additional expense re-
sultlng from delays and continuances of
the trial OF his cases. On the contrary
| they always make an additional charge
| for preparing their cases anew, and the
taxpayer has TO foot the bill; but the law
yers have better facilities for knowing the
facts and of understanding in this matter
what IS tor the interest OF The body OF tax
payers, of which they are component
part, and because they do understand that
while the enactment of this law will in
nowise benefit them, it is manifestly un-
just to accuse them (some OF whom are
our best citizens) of ulterior motives in
unanimously with just one little single
exception OF an attorney who has been
pracilcing in our courts very short time.
and who has not had enough experience
at this bar to enable him TO form an ade-
quate opinion IN the premiSeS) recon-
mending the passage of this bill. Every
taxpayer should, in his own interest, get
out and work for the enactment of this
Dill into law. TAXPAYER.