The times., 1899-01-17
Want THE BILL PASSED
Municipal Court Measure
Growing in Popularity.
DISTRICT BAR APPROVES 1T
Mr. j. AItheus Johnson's Letter to
Representative EatiIncr-Two Bills
Those i'll Opposition Are Justices
of the Peace and ConstnbIcs.

The publication of the article relating
to the Jenkins bin to establish muEici-
pal court in the District and to abolish tl.s
offices of Justice Of the peace and consta-
BILE, in The Times of yesterday. has arous
ed great interest in this measure, which
is now before the House Commit e Cn the
District Of CoiumnIa.
The stand taken oy many lawyers in
favor Of the bill was the cause OF much
favorable comment yesterday ard the need
of n municipal court has become more
and more apparent now that the present
system and the proposed system have
| been compared.
The Jenkins bill was drawn up by and
introduced at the request of a comnittea
representing the Bar Association of the
District, and every lawyer in the District
is heartily in favor of the establishment
I of municipal court. The reasons given
are legion. Such court, it is sand. would
tend to dignity the law in minor cases.
1t is claimed that it would abolish the
present fee favoritism shown by many
justices of the peace, according TO their
| statements and it would give the unfor
tunates an opportunity to obtain justice,
in place Of the present 'iudgmsnt for the
plaintiff 1t would also abolish the con-
| stable and establish court of record.
Want the Bill Passed.
The great plain citizenry are unani-
mously in favor of the bill. The municipal
court would insure them justice in all
cases, they claim. 1t would, they also
claim. do away with the present bullying
system and illegal levies. 1t gives them
right of trial by jury and will, they claim,
insure them protection.
The only arguments against the propos-
ed municipal court are those made by the
justices of the peace themselves. They
claim that the bill should not pass because
it would involve an appropriation of about
$4,000 per year and that this sum must
come out Of the pockets OF the taxpayers.
VIII Yield n Revenue.
In answer 10 this argument those who
have made study of the matter show that
at present over 80. 600 cases are tried every
year before the justices of the peace in the
District The fees for the justice in each
case average s1.25. These fees would be
paid into the Treasury by the municipal
court and from this source of income
would be drawn the $4,000 per year for
salaries of the justices of the proposed
municipal court Thus the court would
be source of revenue 10 the taxpayers
instead of being burden.
The jenkins bill III. +. 1879 is sub
stantially the same as H. r. sl4, which
was introduced by Representative Lati-
mer at the last session of Congress The
jenkins bill. it is claimed by some, is
more concise. but both bills aim at the
establishment of a municipal court and
the abolishing of the Offices OF justice OF
the peace and constable.
Representative Latimer was seen by
Times reporter yesterday and stated that
he was not welded TO any particular bill.
He had read the article in The Times and
thought that the municipal court ought
to be established. He thought that out
of the two bills a perfect measure could
he produced. Representative Latimer has
received the following letter from J. A.
theus johnson, a member of the District
bar This letter explains the bills very
clearly and shows the working OF the
proposed municipal court:
Mr. Johnson's Letter.
Mr. Johnson says:
Washington, D. C.. Jan. 10, 1899.
The bill III. r. 9s14j To abolish the
Office OF justice of the peace within and for
the District OF Columbia. and for other
purposes, introduced by you in April last
can now be considered in connection with
another bill having the same object in
view TO wit, bill No. 1873, the latter pre-
pared by 4 committee of the Bar Associa-
ton OF the District appointed for the pur-
pose
Both bills agree that the present justice
OF the peace system should be abolished
and a system established with different
| method for paying the judges from that
now provided for justice of the peace. At
present a justice Of the peace finds it TO his
personal advantage 10 win and hold the
favor of men who have many cases TO
bring as. for instance, real estate firm
doing q large business, which has many
| landlord and tenant cases; and have often
| heard it said that the official judgment OF
! q justice of the peace was warped by Il
| consideration for his personal interest.
| This evil, inherent in the fee-system meth
cd Of compensation, both the bills agree in
| eradicating.
so far also as jurisdiction and methods
of procedure are concerned. both the bills
| agree lin the main in adopting the law
which now governs justices OF the peace.
4 large part Of the many provisions in bill
| No 1873 is already law and bill No. gs1 1
simply does not recopy such matters for
| rc-enactnient. Where the TWO bills, how
! ever. depart from each other and what is
1 at present the law. the preference is very
+ largely TO be given 10 No. sS1i.
y am aware that the District Commits
sloneTs, about Two weeks after the intro
| duction OF 10. 1914. forwarded TO the House
committee a report. written by their at
| torney, adverse to the bill, and that they
gave their approval to that report. That
report was evidently intended only TO side
| track No. 1914 until the bill could be in
! troduced which was then said to be in
preparation, and which, by the report, was
| youched for in advance, to wit, bill No.
! 1873. Otherwise il would be hard TO un-
| deTstand why an attorney, conyersant OF
the situation, should write as the attorney
for the Commissioners did of bill No 1914
He speaks. for instance. as If he thought
/ the bill might add to the expenses of the
judicial establishment of the District.
! whereas the measure would result in a
revenue 10 the District over and above the
amount Of the salaries provided The bill
provides that The fees for litigation shall
I remain as al present, that they shall be
paid by the litigants as at present, but
| that they shall be turned into the treas
/ ury. When you consider that over 30 0OG
cases year are instituted before the ff-
teen justices OF the peace in the District
in each Of which case the fees for the jus
tice averaged sl.25 at the least you can
!. . .
I - Z: