The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-02-18
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PROPOSED ABOLISHMENT DISCUSS
Ed COUNTYBAR MEETING.
Arguments by Judge Harrison, r. p.
Arvtne, G. $. Hamilton, and Others
Resolution Favoring Appointment of
Judges by the Governor, Adopted.

hrFAhe, " Sc HamiltOn, anu Others :
Resolution Favoring Appointment OF
Judges by the Governor, Adopted.
largely attended meeting of the
New Haven County Bar association
was held yesterday forenoon at II
O'Clock In the superior court room tc
discuss the proposed abolition of the
1 courts of common pleas and the district
court of Waterbury. Attorney John w
Alling presided.
EX-Judge Lynde Harrison Of the asso-
cations committee on legislation pre-.
scented a resolution declaring that the
New Haven County Bar association was
opposed to abolishing the courts of
common pleas The committee on Leg
islation is composed of z. p. Arvine,
Lynde Harrison and w. Fl. Ely. Messrs.
Harrison and Ely favored the resolu-
tion( introduced by the former, but Mr..
Alling offered substitute resolution
providing that the association recon-
mend the retention of the courts Of
common pleas, provided the judges are
appointed by the governor in the same
manner as the superior court judges are
appointed, and that they be itinerant.
Mr.. Arvine has drawn up constitu-
tional amendment to this effect and the
proposed amendment was presented in
the general assembly last week and is
now before the committee on constitu-
tional amendments.
J Attorney Charles s. Hamilton then
presented a resolution providing that
| 1T Is the opinion Of the members of the
New Haven county bar that the crlmi-
nal side Of the court of common pleas
| be abolished, and that the civil side be
abolished unless the judges thereof are
elected by the people o. appointed by
the governor, and are put upon circuit
duty, the same as the judges of the su-
| perior court"
Attorney Charles H. Fowler also pre-
scented resolution in favor Of abolish
ing the criminal side of the court of
common pleas, but later Withdrew 1T,
as the same substance was embodied in
Mr. Hamiltons resolution.
Judge Harrison said in support of his
resolution that nearly all the members
of the bar We're in favor of the reterl7
ton of the court of common pleas. He
said that such details as the way of
appointment of judges could be dispos-
ed Of later, and that the most important
matter at present was the question of
the abolition Of the court of common
pleas.
Mr. Arvine disagreed with Judge Har-
rison, and held that changes should be
made in the court in question. He char
acterized the system of appointment OF
judges of that cqiirt as disgrace to
civilized state, and said that it was
vicious system and one that Should be
changed. He said that the appoint
ments We're made in an undetermined
way and that there was apparently a
desire to prevent the public knowing
mucT. about them. He referred to the
recommendation of the special commit
tee on state expenditures that the court
of common council should be abolished,
and thought that the New Haven coun-
ty bar should recommend in the same
line. He said: ''The present method
of appointing these judges is a disgrace.
The caucus system is radically wrong"
c. S. Hamilton said that while he in
tended to make no reflections on the
men holding offices in the court OF CONF
mon pleas, he thought that the criminal
side should be aaboiished and also the
civil side, unless the judges We're app
pointed as the judges OF the superior
court now are. He referred to the re-
port of the state committee in which 1T
was stated that the utility of the court
of common pleas was not such as to
warrant it's retention and therefore rec
commended it's adjustment. He said
that he had not seen Judge Harrison
practicing in the court Of common pleas
for ten years, yet he was an earnest
advocate of the retention of that court
In this connection Mr.. Hamilton refer
red to the patriotism of Josh Billings
who wanted to send all his wife's rela-
tives to war. In conclusion he said: IT
present this resolution that the matter
may be put squarely before the meet
ing. Medical men speak of local adhe- |,
sion,' and I think that the local courts
are afflicted with that same thing, and
that is what is wrong with the court of |
pleas. This complaint is one |
which troubles the judges Of the court |
on account of long-continued residence |
in one court. The only cure for this is |
to separate the parts. The court of
common pleas has never operated sue
cessfully and it never will until some
radical changes are made. Now the !
judges are appointed by the lobby in
Charles H. Fowler said that he
thought that the criminal side of the
courts of common pleas was unneces-
sary. He said that it was established
to make places and had never justified
It's existence.
George M. Gum, prosecuting attorney
in the court of common pleas, spoke in
favor of the retention of that court
saying that it seemed to him that the
experiences of Mr. Hamilton and Mr.
Fowler in the courts of common pleas
lad not been very satisfactory to them.
Mr.. Gum also said that he did not
.hink that those two men would ask
or the abolition of the court If it had
)een established to make places for
hem.
Attorneys Henry G. Newton and w.
f. Ely also spoke in favor of the reten-
ion of the court
The meeting then voted to table Mr..
resolution. Judge Harri-
sons resolution in favor of retaining
he courts of common pleas and the
Waterbury district court was adopted.
Mr. Arvine then divided his resolution
nto two parts and each was adopted,
me to the effect that the judges of the