The herald., 1897-01-08
Amendments Suggested by the
Bar for Its Betterment
SOME RADICAL CHANGES
An Important Meeting Of the Los Angeles
Bar Yesterday
The Suggestions of the San Francisco
Bar Adopted, With But a Few
Unimportant Changes.

The members of the Los Angeles bar
met in Judge Van Dykes court room
yesterday morning TO conclude the busi-
ness connected with the attempt to
secure amendemnts to the judiciary sys-
tenn of the state. The meeting was very
largely attended and much interest was
manifested in the proceedings. Judge
Van Dyke, as the senior member of the
Los Angeles bench, presided, and Mr.
Pollard acted as secretary.
The committee appointed to examine
the judiciary article of the state con-
stitution proposed by the judiciary COM
mittee of the Bar association of San
Francisco presented report, which was
generally discussed, and finally adopted
with but a ewNlnmportant changes.
The COMMITTEES having the matter in
charge consists of Messrs. Alex Camp
bell NJ. L. Graft, William j. Hunsaker.
John D. Works. and j. A. ]. Anderson,
and they We're continued as a committee
to present the proposed amendments
before the legislature at the present
session.
In presenting the report he committee
stated that while they agreed with the
general scheme as proposed by the San
Francisco bar. they thought it best to
present some notifications and changes
which would further improve matters
The principal notifications and
changes suggested are briefly summar-
i3ed as follows:
The amendments proposed locate the
supreme court permanently and excluS-
lively in the city OF san Francisco, and
require that no case shall be submitted
to it without oral argument, and that
each case orally argued shall be inlme-
diately taken up and decided. to the
exclusion OF all other business. This
would compel lawyers residing long
distances from San Francisco to attend
that court and argue all of their cases
orally, whether they desired to co so or
not, and If any attorney should be for
tunate enough TO have more than ore
case pending al the same time he would
be compelled before taking up his sec
ond case, to wait until the court had
decided every other case submitted be-
fore his own. or submit to the expense
of returning ard making another trip
or as many more as he should have cases
pending. Our proposed amendment to
this section requires the court to sit in
three places in the state, as it does now;
provides for oral argument, and that
the cases shall be decided in the supreme
COURT Nllulll lElTty QdSS IL OldllS al
gued, and sixty days In other cases
and in the district courts of appeal
within thirty days after submission.
The proposed amendments confer ju-
risdliction upon the district courts of
appeal liz all classes and kinds of cases
and proceedings not involving consti-
tutional questions, validity of treaties
and similar questions. We have thought
it best to define specifically the classes
of cases in which district courts OF ap-
peal shall have jurisdiction, and to make
their jurisdiction in such cases final and
conclusive, except in case of conflict in
decisions. when the court is called upon
TO decide a question already decided
by another or the same court. contra
ry to its present convictions, in which
case it is required TO certify the question
to the supreme court for its instruc-
tion or final decision.
The purpose Of this change Is to
keep the jurisdiction of the two courts
of final resort as distinct and separate
as possible. and thus avoid conflicts in
the decided cases as far as possible.
by the proposed amendments sub
mitted to us, the supreme court is au-
thorzed to issue writs of certiOrari.
prohibition. habeas corpus and other
writs generally. Our amendment con-
fines the power of the supreme court