The record-union., 1895-02-16
TIE PROPOSED THIRD JUDGESHIP.
More Lawyers Declare Themselves in
Favor Thereof,
They Also Unanimously Condemn the
Proposed Hatfield Consritu-
tional Amendment.

The RECORD UNION to-day presents
additional Interviews with members of
the Sacramento bar to those heretofore
published on the subject of the necessity
for a third Superior Judgeship 1t will
be seen that every lawyer thus far heard
from, with the exception of L. I. Hat
field, recognizes the fact that another
Judge is necessary to the proper dispatch
of the legal business of the county.
1t is also worthy of note, IN this con-
nectlon, that they are all equally as en-
phatic in their condemnation of the con-
sIltutlonal amendment offered in the
Legislature by Mr.. Hatfield, which pro-
poses to change the judicial system of the
State.
AN UNWISE MEASURE.
Concerning the ACCESSIBILITY of having
the Judges of our Superior Courts mi
CRATE from place to place where their
services may be most desired, it would,
In my Judgment, be a very unwise meas
ure," said Z. II. Oatman. 1.-The policy
OF our Constitution and laws is to have our
officers OF every kind elected by the people
OF the district in which their duties are to
be performed. Under the present sys-
tenn, practically the only case in which a
Judge OF the superior Court ever sits in
any county other than that in which he was
elected Is where an exchange of Judges
Is necessary by reason OF the disQualiti-
cation OF one or both to hear and deter
mine some case or cases pending.
The trainers of our present COnStitu-
ton did good thing when they provided
Tor Superior Court in each county,
which should be always open for the
transaction OF business and with at least
one Judge elected 10 hold it and 10 re-
side permanently at the county seat The
old system provided tor District Courts
holding terms of court at stated inter-
walls, with long vacations intervening,
during which no business could be trans
acted III court.
The proposed amendment, while not
IN form return to the old system, would
nevertheless revive most of it's bad tea-
lures. Many of the counties would be
LETT without their Superior Judges for long
periods OF time, and the resulting evils
would be even greater than under the old
system or District Courts, as we had then
County Court IN each county, perma-
nently located at the county seat, in
which much OF the business now within
the jurisdiction OF the Superior Court was
transacted.
The expense under the proposed sys-
tenn would De largely increased by the
travelling expenses and maintenance of
the Judges Wnen visiting other counties.
The salary OF each Judge of the Superior
Court Is paid one-half by the State and
-LItLl ny VIC equity III llCn he IS
elected, and the proposed system would
throw great part Of the expense for the
transaction OF the business of the more
pOpulous counties upon the taxpayers of
those less pOpulous.
1T may be said that the Judges of the
less pOpuIous counties, having COMPARE
lively little TO DO, should be compelled
to earn their salary by putting in their
time elsewhere, but it is practically a
necessity that the Superior Court of each
county should, as provided by the Con-
stitutlon, be always open for the trans
action of business, aud the taxpayers of
each county, who are all liable at any time
to become Ilgants, can well afford to pay
the salary OF at least one Judge to remain
permanently at the county seat.
III the business of any county is too
great. as in this county, to be properly
and promptly attended to by the Judges
already provided, the number should be
increased, and the expense would be little
il any greater than the expense to the
county under the system proposed by
this amendment. Courtrooms, chambers
for the Judges, deputy clerks and bailitfs
would have TO be provided IN either event,
and the travelling expenses and mainte-
nance OF the visiting Judges would 90 a
long way toward the payment OF their
salaries"
WHAT JUDGE ARMSTRONG SAID.
Ex-Judge Armstrong; views are well
known, but ne was asked to give some of
the reasons why, in his Judgment there
should be a third resident Judge.
Il am in favor Of third Judge here"
he said, land the reason is plain to any
one who has observed the course of bust
ness of the court. There is more bust
ness in This court than any two Judges
can do, and DO justice to the litigant
parties. The last two years that I was on
the bench the business Increased rapidly
and especially the criminal business, and
l found it impossible without working
nights and Sundays to keep anything
near up with the business. The people
have no right TO ask a Judge to do that
LAS to the expense, it would not be as
great by 5000 year as the scheme pro-
posed by Mr.. Hatfield. His scheme
seems to ne TO be entirely impracticable.
The proposition is to amend the Consti-
tuition SO as 10 form judicial districts, and
that no district shall be less than where
three Judges will be required, and it pro-
vides that no Judge shall hold court in
the county in which he is elected. There
are two very grave objections to his con-
sututiOnal amendment.
.''Eirst-IL is in effect declaring that no
man can be elected Judge who is honest
enough to administer the law among his
neighbors who have elected him to Office.
This casts reproach upon the bench that
will destroy, eventually, it's entire useful
ness, for nobody Will believe in the hoG-
esty of the administration of Justice
The second proposition is, that the
whole system is complicated, and would
be expensive far beyond the expense OF
maintaining the present system. 1t is a
great mistake TO be changing the Judi
ciary often. 1t is now established, and
should remain so; this permits the LeCis-
Iature, where necessity requires, to give
additional Judges; it also permits the
Legislature, where the business of any
county has decreased so that there is not
sufficient business for all the Judges. tc
diminish the number of Judges. In
what respect can we better this system !
think none"
''ILL-ADVISED AND CRUDE"
Alvin j Bruner, W hen asked his opin.
ion of the Hatfield constitutional amend
ment, said:
at appears to me that the constitu-
tional amendment that has been intro
duced by Mr.. Hatfield is very ill-advised
and has been very crudely drawn. The
judicial department OF our state should
not be changed or even tempered with
unless il is done after careful cOnsid er-
alton by the entire bar OF this State.
~ have examined the so-caled consti-
tutional amendment introduced by Mr.
Hatfield and it is my firm belief that il
the members of the bar and the judiciary
of this State were aware OF It's introduce
ton, the Legislature would be crowded
with protests from all portions OF Califor-
MIA. Our present judicial system is work
ing with the very best results, and it has
only got into shape within the past few
years and now TO change it, in my opin-
ion, would be, 10 say the least, ill-advised
~ am of the opinion that it is abso-
lutely necessary that the bill should be