The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-05-12
SHALL COURT OF APPEALS COR

In this year of excitement over other
issues there is one matter of Importance
to be settled by the people of Kansas at
the fall election which may be partially
lost sight of in the election of a presi-
dent. 1t is the question of charging the
state supreme court
The question is submitted in the shape
of an amendment to the constitution,
and the proposition is to increase the
number of supreme court judges from
three to seven. In case the proposition
carries three judges may sit on a case,
but it win require the concurrent opin-
ion of the three to render a decision. In
this manner two courts can practically
be running at the same time, and twice
as much business can be accomplished
as by the present court
Either the supreme court must be
enlarged, or the court of appeals must
be continued. The volume of legal
business has grown so great that the
present supreme court can not keep up
with it. The court of appeals was Gre
ated for the purpose of allowing the
supreme court to catch up with its busi-
ness, and this practically will have been
accomplished when the court of appeals
goes out of existence next January. But
the number of cases which are constant
ly appealed from the district court is so
great that the supreme court as at pres
ent constituted can not handle them.
The bar of the state is almost unan-
imouS in its opposition to the contin-
uance of the courts of appeal. There
are two reasons why this is true. In the
first place, there are two sets of judges
in the courts of appeals, a northern de-
partment and a southern department,
each independent of the other. Some
times the same question is pending in
both divisions at the same time. One
| department decides it one way and pos
sibly the other department renders a
decision exactly opposite. If the de-
cision is one affecting contracts or bust
ness relations, business men do not
know which to follow and uncertainty
in making contracts results.
Then again, the decisions of the courts
of appeals are not final, and an attempt
| is nearly always made to carry all cases
possible on to the supreme court. The
| expense to litigants Is therefore made
much greater, and there is a great delay
in the final determination of the cases.
In other words the appeal must be
fought over twice, whereas if it could
be carried directly to the supreme court
| it would reach a final settlement on a
| single hearing.
These are the arguments from the
point of view of the lawyer, but there
| is also a taxpayers side to the question.
| At present there are six judges of the
courts of appeals, six stenographers for
! them six sets of clerks, one for each
division in each department, and six
sets of offices must be maintained The
salaries and expenses of all of these
amount to a considerable sum of money
each year. The proposed amendment to
| the constitution charging the supreme
court, would do away with all these and
! simply establish in their places four
/ judges and four stenographers The
present clerk of the supreme court
| would continue to do all the work of
1 caring for the court records, thereby
doing away with six clerks, and the
quarters of the court would be the su-
! preme court quarters thereby doing
away with the necessity of maintaining
separate quarters at Colby, Concordia,
| Topeka, Fort Scott, Wichita and Gar
den City. The saving would be the sal
aries of two judges, two stenographers,
six clerks and six offices.
From every standpoint the argument
| is favorable to the amendment, and if
the subject is sufficiently agitated there
is little doubt that the supreme court
will be enlarged and the courts of ap-
,,aaIc oh