The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-02-10
REIIrF ron rHE coURr OF ArPBALs.
Views Of n Member of the Committee That
Framed the Present Judiciary Article.

Framed the Present Judiciary Article.
To THE EpIroR OF TIE suN-Sir; Your edi-
torial OF to-day opposing the amendment to
the State Constitution for tho appointment OF
temporary Judges OF the Court OF Appeals IS
most timely. All who understand the subject
know that some relief for the Court OF Appeals
Is imperatively demanded. As a member OF
the Judiciary Committee OF the Constitutional
Convention OF 1904, which framed the judiciary
article OF the Constitution. 1 had occasion TO
examine tho subject most carefully. The COM
mittee spent as much time upon the subject OF
the number OF Judges OF which the Court oil
Appeals should be composed as upon any other
one subject. Several OF the Judges OF TINS
court. and also Judges OF the Supreme Court
and Of other courts OF record, appeared before
the committee.
1t was proposed before the committee by
some members that q court should be consul
tuted Of fourteen members. to sit, generally. IN
two divisions. but when constitutional and
other important questions were considered,
the whole number to sit as one court. There
were also advocates OF a court consisting OF
nine. OF eleven. and also OF thirteen Judges.
The question was voted upon repeatedly dur
ing the three months In which the judiciary ar
ticle was under discussion. With mlsgivinRs
on the part OF SOM OF the committee as 10 the
practicability Of the measure aud by q majority
OF only one. the number was fixed at nine.
This was changed by the convention to seven.
As one Of the committee who voted In favor
Of seven Judges. 1 confess that my expecta-
tions that the court thus constituted could
perform its duties with reasonable despatch
have not been realized; and / look for RELIEF
from some source. but l do not believe it will
come by adopting the amendment now before
the Legislature.
The proposed amendment will not give tho
required relief. A court consisting OF eleven
members can do. practically. no more work
than one consisting Of seven. SO far as know.
ment except that the Judges not hearing areu;
ne, msRRts VIII he Gfe S \ In n writing sa 0I,n ria1iv. ant Il
does not seem that there is much force in TINS
argument. Judge Folger once said that In
most cases the court came to a conclusion
cases When Tie court oonsuited it was at once
unanimous In its opinion. This Is confirmed
pears that the court is unanimous in about
nine cases out Of everyten. In the past. Wnen
inions with their own hands. it required hours,
where now the same opinion can be dictated IN
Assuming that the court disposes OF about
525 cases each year, which is substantially
the number, and assuming, that opinions are
written in all the cases. which is not the case,
each member of the court Is called upon to
write seventy-tlVe opinions each year. IL VIII
more than four days not occupied in hearing
arguments or in consultation to devote TO the
writing aiG q ! one opinion PM n =, Every = LAW LAWYER we o 0i eS,
utes; / do not see, therefore, that much relief
dltionaI Judges to write opinions. for that is
it was expected that the creation Of the APP
pellate Division o! the Supreme Court; with I'VE
55S 9SEs s. E ToSsa, tend bat t tbi les sxpec spRealsa does to f nos
seem to have been fulfilled. AT least there has
been no manifest change, in this respect. IT Is
be made up April II will contain, at least one
thousand cases. Therefore. without the ad-
two years WORK for the court upon that calen-
dar. This 10 not as 1t should be and. II Justice
relief. The PROPOSED constitutional amend
ment viii! not give the desired relief.
There is. however. / believe. a practical way
sired result without increasing the number Of
Judges. This can be done by a money limita-
to provide that no appeal shall be taken to this
court unless the amount involved Is $4,000, or
in itl case Of eondictinE decisions BY the Appellate
Divisions OF the Supreme Court.
a money SneSsl limita ii G,n has oe eeIis tr ie Ian and d Is AL
court Of the United states It Is also the
the. AMOUNT an many is Oh fl1 sed S at q p aop ""s sum
it has proved, most satisfactory. The OBJ
not appear very forcible. 1t is som etimes said
that as important questions are raised in cases
where a large amount is at stake. The answer
to that proposition is that the rule is other
wise. II in such a case an Appellate Division
makes an erroneous decision the question vii!
soon reach the Court OF Appeals IN some other
case. where the question will be finally deter
ton is that it makes The Court Of Appeals q
rich mans court. II is difficult to see hoy it
i now ~ is, for it is the corporations and
the, rich that appeal to the Court OF APP
p pssI to T thi. statute coart in which a esrs Prsgen in;ur an case agc
w Ussii Pass %SsI psitRR sT Esf TO Bcsftsnt m Ta sgS 9 ass sp-
the benefit Of railroads. II this is not so. how
can 4 be for the interests OF the corporations
involved to the sum mentioned, namely, $1,000,
The theory OF any appeal Is that il Is a favor
there IS but one appeal for q any asg2ieved party'
and why should there be more? When a party
has had a fair trial by an impartial court and
VeTsy Vs stop there therei The State. h no we G WILING
to guardthe int. ssts Of its citizens. %copfers
once. Now. in such a case. when II
has fssrt. been sonsis ssain h SIs by leaned an iT9R PaTaa!
why should not the party be satisfied
rounn1df S or tnnd., the e tth ns03ed upon ERoon he T yhath tn the
protecti Ss Of the interests Of The State and to
pass upon questions so important as to be Of
court. then. is for tho State and not for the
parties lltigant. For this reason the court
should not be overburdened with cases, but
should have time to hear the argument and
Before it. II some rule could be made so as to
lessen the appeals to three or four hundred In
each year the law would become more stable
the cases more carefully considered and the
ends Of justice better snbserved than Mt present
By an examination OF the cases decided by
the court It will he seen that a very large mum,
her would be. excluded from the court by a
money Limitation Of S.. 700.
UTICA. Feb. Z. II. j. C~ooKIHHAM.