The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1897-02-19
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
The County Court is an Ancient and Cum
bersome System.


gest some other form of county govern
ment than the existing system, and we
believe that change Is so generally
desired, even among the more intelli-
gent members of the County Court it.
self, that it is altogether unnecessary to
urge this subject with much argument
upon the attention of the people.
1t has been the one reason which
every one has been able to give for the
necessity of Constitutional Conven-
ton, that we might abolish the County
Court and adopt some other more mod
ern and more efficient system of county
government. ...
1t is court, the existence of which is
recognized by our Constitution, and it
is beyond the power of the Legislature
to abolish it. In 1868 the Legislature
undertook to supplant and abolish this
ancient institution of the State and
place in its stead a Board Of three COM
missioners, comforting upon the COM
missioners the powers of the Quarterly
Court and perhaps some additional
powers not possessed by said court The
provisions of this act, however, did not
extend to every county in the State, but
only to certain counties therein men
toned.
Our Supreme Court, in case of Pope
vs.. Phifer, 3 Heiskell Reports page 6S3,
held that this act was obnoxious to the
Constitution in two respects; in the
first place the County Court was con-
stitutional fixture and the Legislature
had no power to remove it; and in the
second place it was special law made
applicable only to certain named coun-
ties, and therefore was not the claw of
the land" within the meaning of Art. l,
Sec. of our Constitution.
This decision was made under the
constitution of 1884, but the constitu-
ton of 1870 makes the same recognition
of the County Court as an existing in
stitution of the State as did the consti-
tuition of 1884, and it still remains a con-
stitutional fixture.
The County Court is very ancient
institution, and under the name of the
County Court of Pleas and Quarter
Sessions" composed of the justices of
the county, was established in North
Carolina before the formation of the
State of Tennessee, and was regarded as
one of the established courts when the
government of the State was orga nized,
and so continued until the adoption of
the constitution of 1881. Previous there
to the Legislature had, from time to
time reduced the number of justices, re-
quired to hold for some purposes, but
the organization of the court and its
general jurisdiction remained the same.
After the adoption of the constitution
os 1894, which left the establishment
of inferior courts to the Legislature, by
the acts of 1885, the judicial system was
reorganized, and by chapter s, this court
was re-established under the name of
the County Court" to be composed as
before of the justices of the county. All
j
which it formerly had, was taken away,
and this court has ever since been in
existence and known as the County
Court, composed of the justices.
By the act of 1873, CHI. l35, amending
the act of 1885, provision was made by
which all except the quarterly terms of
the courts might be held by three of the
justices to be selected for that purpose,
styled the quorum court, and afterwards
the judicial powers of the court to a
great extent, as they were increased
from time to time, were vested in this
quorum court. The court, however, re-
NAMED the same, the only difference
being that for certain purposes only
three justices were required to be pres
ent. The quarterly terms were still
held by all the justices, or majority
Such is the brief history of this court
in Tennessee as given by Judge McFar.
land in the case of the State VS., John
son, s Lea Reports, pages II and rs.
BY the act of 1879 oh. 20, however
! UneS6 uuOIul COulLS, Cum pOoCu VI VII &C
Justices as provided for by the act OF
| 1878, were abolished, and the duties
Jurisdiction and powers thereof were
conferred on the Chairman of the
County Court In some counties the
J Legislature has established the office OF
, county judge, but there is practically
no difference between county judge
and the Chairman of the County Court
except in the manner of their election
and in the duration of their terms OF
office, the county judges being elected
! by the qualified voters of the county fol
eight years, and the Chairman of the
County Court annually by the member:
of said court.
So that the County Court as now con
stituted consists of the justices of tn,
county, and is divided into a quarterly
and monthly court, the first being held
by all or such number of the justice,
necessary to transact business, the lat