Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-01-16
THE MUNICIPAL COURT
Proposed Creation Objected to by Promi
nent Citizen.
Regards the Change From Present
System ms Unnecessary and Not
Demanded by People.

A number of the justices of the peace
in this city. and others who have given
the matter consideration. are considerably
exercised about bill introduced in Con-
gress to establish a municipal court for
the District of Columbia, and to abolish
the offices of justice of the peace and con-
stable. The bill, numbered 1878, was in
troduced by Mr.. Jenkins and referred to
the committee on the District of Columbia
In talking with a Star reporter on the
subject, a well-known citizen said:
THE bill is of great Importance to the
people of the District, and should be care
fully considered. There is no complaint SO
far as is known, on the part of the citizens
against the present system, and there are
| no efforts outside of the legal fraternity
for the passage of this bill. The increase
of the Jurisdiction of the justice of the
peace has removed from the Supreme Court
of the District a number of suits
formerly exclusively in the jurisdiction
of that court, and hence requiring the
service of counsel. The Court of Appeals
has decided that a certiorari on the ground
of concurrent jurisdiction, will not lie, and
the justice court having original jurisdic-
ton the case may not be removed to the
Supreme Court for trial. This is one of the
objections made by the lawyers. Again, in
jury trials, it is claimed that under the
present system there is appeal from a
jury trial in a Justices court.
Suggests u Remedy.
Il think If these are the only objections
to the present system the remedy would be
simple-that Is, to have Congress pass an
act granting the right to defendants upon
petition to have their cases removed to the
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
upon certiorar in all cases where the
amount involved is over $50.
The new bill, section 20, provides that
IN all cases tried without jury, where the
value of the properly exceeds SO, either
party may take an appeal to he Supreme
Court OF the District of Columbia, under
certain conditions. Under the present sys-
TEN an appeal may be had where the
amount exceeds 50. Section ~ of the bill
provides That il upon trial of any cause
Delore jury, where the amount claimed to
be due or the value in controversy shall ex-
ceed $oO, an exception may Ne taken dit
may be reduced to writing at the time, to
tne Court OF Appeals, not Supreme Court
OF the District OF Columbia Now, if this
method would preserve the right of appeal
IN jury cases betore the municipal court,
why would not the same some less cum
bersome plan preserve the right in cases be-
fore the justice of the peace?
Chder the proposed system there are to
be four Justices, one to be designat ed chief
! justice, with salary of So 200. the three
associate justices each to receive So 900; a
| clerk of the court at $500 the salaries
W Sif,iUD, pdydDIe at the United
states treasury.
The clerk is to receive such allowance
ior necessary expenses of his Office as the
court municipal court may determine by
speciaI ofder in the premises, payable at
the tnted States treasury. and NAV an
point such number of assistant clerks TO he
paid from the emoluments of said office, as
shall be approved by the Attorney General
of the United States.
section ~ requires that the Attorney
General snail provide suitable rooms and
accommodatlons for said court. to be paid
Tor IN the same manner. Section s. line ~
page 3, provides that the court (municipan
snail regulate from time to time the fees
TO be charged by the clerk which shall he
accounted Tor at least once in each Quarter
and paid into the treasury of the United
states provided. that the original deposit
Tor costs in the clerks office, to be made by
the plaintiff, shall not exceed 81 when tic
amount sued for does not exceed S1OO'
Section Is, page 6, provides for a iurv of
Twelve men, who shall be drawn under and
In pursuance of the laws concerning jurors
IN the supreme Court of the District of CO.
iumbia; they shall receive the same COM
pensaton as jurors of the Supreme Court
OF the District of Columbia ($2 per day),
ana snail serve three months: and at least
tWenty-siX names so drawn shall be certf-
ned by the clerk of the Supreme Court TO
the said municipal court for service.
Line L. section Is, page l. provides: In
all cases tried in said municipal court be-
fore judge a charge of $l2 for each and
every day or fractional part of a day said
jury shall be engaged in the trial of the
cause shall be taxed against the unsuccess-
flil htgant in the cause as costs (addi-
tional to other COSTS.
Section IS provides that the office of
justice of the peace for the District of Co
lumhia shall be. and is hereby. abolished
to take effect sixty days from the date of
approval of this act
Gives No Additional Power.
Now, is this change demanded or de-
sired by the citizens or taxpayers? The
proposed change gives no additional power
to the court not now enjoyed by the justice
of the peace. 1t gives no power to issue
criminal or peace warrants, and leaves the
Police Court OF the District the only power
to issue such warrants. 1t makes the col
lection of small debts almost impossible
and greatly increases the costs to be paid
by all htigants. All writs are to be served
by the United States marshal, the office of
constable being abolished.
The office of justice of the peace is one
conducted without one dollar of expense to
the United States or taxpayers of the Dis
trict The proposed court will involve an
appropriation of al least $4,000 per year
for its support, and this money must be
paid out of the pockets of the United States
and the District, unless the revenue of the
court shall be sufficient 1t is contended
therefore, that the proposed change is not
called for; that the creation of the court
would be disadvantage to the poor in
the collection of small debts, and would
necessitate the employment of counsel the
only class to be benetited) in almost every
case.
The present bill is substantially the
same as H. r. bill No. 9Sl4, which provides
for a municipal court (only more cumber-
some and not so comprehensive which was
introduced by Mr.. Latimer April 10, 1898.
and referred to the District committee and
by 1t referred to the Commissioners of the
District of Columbia, who subsequently re-
ported adversely to it in letter TO the
District committee"
The Reverse View.
The question of whether or not a NUM-
cpal court is desirable was preached today
to q number of local attorneys, and their
opinions obtained. Among these are the
following:
Attorney ]. ]. Darlington-"I am heartily