Evening journal., 1896-12-26
NEEDS OF THE BENCH.
Concluding Part of Judge
Grubb's Paper.
FAvoRs A STRONG LOWER COURT
ONE-JUDGE SYSTEM LEADS TO
MANY APPEALS AND MAKES
LITIGATION COSTLY ~ SERVES
THE INTERESTS OF SORDID
LAWYERS.

LAWYERS.
Following is the concluding part OF
Judge Grubb's paper on "The Judiciary |
of Delaware" and is by far the most |
important. as 1t deals with what the
Judge believes the newly-constituted |
court should be:
The following have been members of
the Delaware judiciary under the colonial |
and state governments:
Chief Justices Of the Three Delaware
Counties Under the Colonial Government
Jasper Yeates. appointed December s, 1907
John Healey, April II. 17l0. Richard Bir-
mingham, March 10. 17l4; Jasper Yeates,
August /. 17l7; Colonel John French July
25 1720; David Evans April 20, l72I; Dr.
Samuel Chew, 17ii William TIL, 17i3;
Ryves Holt, october 26, 1915; John Nining'
october 30, 1864; Richard McWilliams, Oc-
tober 80 1873.
Chief Justices Of Delaware under Con-
stitution of 1776-William Killen, ap-
pointed June 6. 1777
Chief Justices Of the Supreme Court
under Constitution of 1792-George Read
appointed September 80, 1898; Kensey
Johns, sr., January 8. 1893; Samuel NJ. Har-
rington October lG. $780,
Chief Justices OF the Court Of Common
Pleas, under Constitution Of 1792-Richard
Bassett appointed September 6. 1873;
James Booth, Sr, January 2S, 1885, Thomas
Clayton February 8, 1928.
Chief Justices OF Delaware. under Con-
stitution of 1S3l-Thomas Clayton, ap-
pointed January Is. 1892; John NJ. Clayton
January lG. 1887; Richard II. Bayard. sep
tember 10, 1885, James Booth, Jr, Maron
70, 1Sf Samuel NJ. Harrington Aprll o.
1856. Edward w. Gipin. May o. 1921 ,
Joseph p. Comegys. May IS. lelo' Aiireu
p. Robinson, January 26' lesS' ohaiies D.
Lore. March 2l, 1898
Associate Judges of Delaware under
coretitntion of 1g3i-Jamcs r. Black, ap-
pointed January Is. 1882; Samuel NJ Har-
rington January 49, 1882; Peter Robinson
January is. 1892: Caleb S. Layton, June 3
1896: John j. Milligan. September 49, 1893;
David Hazard, December 10. 1874; Edward
Vootten. September G. iS47; John w.
Houston. May 4. 1855: Leonard f. Wales
September o 1864: William G.. Whiteley,
March 81. 1884; Ignatius c. Grubb, May 20
1856. John H. Paynter. March 25, 1887;
Charles NJ Cullen. August 2S, 1890; David
T. Marvel February l. 1893
Chancellors of Delaware, under Constitu-
tion of 1792-William Killen. appointed Oc-
tober 6. 1898: Nicholas Ridgely, December
G. 1901; Kensey Johns. Sr, June p, 1880.
Chancellors OF Delaware. under Consti-
tuition Of 1s31-Kensey Johns, Jr appoint
ed January Is. 1892; Samuel NJ. Harrington,
May :. 1857; Daniel Moore Bates Decem-
Der ~. 1865. willard Salisbury, November
IA. 1873; James l.. Woicott. May o. 1892
John r. Nicholson. September 8. 1895.
Law Reporters-Samuel NJ Harrington
1s32-1s55: John W. Houston 1S55-lS9S
David r. Marvel. 1898.
Chancery Reporters-Daniel NJ Bates
1S64-lS73: willard salisbury, lSi3-lS92
James L. Wolcott 1S92-lS95 John r. Mich
olson, 1895.
The review Of our entire judicial his
tory. certainly from the Duke Of York;
Clme, will show that our courts OF common
law jurisdiction and procedure have con
tlnuously been constituted upon at III
least, a Judge and never a one, o
even two-judge basis. During the pres
ent century. and particularly under III
present. judicial organization. opponent
Of the three-judge system have arisen ant
labored. at various times, 10 have sub
stitu.s1 in it's stead either a one-judg
or a two-judge plan. These m0vemene
have been initiated or prompted by som
who were inspired by partisan or persona
motives; by others who were more thee
retical than practical, and by many pub
lic-spri.ed citizens animated by an earn
esq desire to make the administration O
justice in this state as efficient as possi
Bile. Hitherto all these movements hav
slgnaily failed, and. doubtless. bscaus
very impor ant considerations were oyel
looked or disregarded
In effectlng changes Of our judicial sy
tenn. certain essential considerations mu
constan.ly be borne in mind In the fin
place. those undertaking such innovation
should havs adequate knowledge OF 4
existing system and IT'S practical oper
tion. They should also have simil,
knowledge Of the condition. views, habit
interests. means and needs Of the warrior
classes Of people in all pats Of our sta.
and should especially remember that Il
pollty established in other and partc
larly larger states may be utterly III
suited 10 our conditions, resources and r
quiremeE.s.
Again it is manifest that there si9u
be no change where none is really nee
ed. nor where the existing system affor
greater advantages and is liable TO few
material objections than win result fro
the adoption Of any proposed substitut
Above all, an entire system should not
abolished. especially where It has be-
,red and approved by many years Of e
perience, when the defeo. may be rem
dlea simply by its Improvement in son
minor respect.
10 should also be observed that the be
OF systems is ever subject TO the nasur
inhrmllies Of the human ms rumsntallti
required for their practical aiministr
ton. The efficiency Of the bes- judici
system. as we'll as OF the most perfe
machine. may be impair d or destroy
by those whose du.y it Is 70 operate
50 that IN such case It IS not the systel
or machine. which is to be discarded, b
those VINO are unqualihtl, or otheTwi
unht 20 have charge Of it, To remove L
personnel Of a bench. It Is not necessa
TO discard the existing judicial sy5se
For upon the mere adopt: n ci a new co
sitution. even If that system be L
wholly unchanged. the tenure OF The exil
ing Judges. would ipso fa,.o. be instant
terminated. unless provision for their co
tlnuance was made in that instrument.
In making any modification for the I,