Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-03-22

. 3
q Shepherds Rancho Feed .
of an appellate court is that it con-
fuses courts. Some years ago we abol-
ished the circuit court to make court
more uniform. To establish an appel
ate court would be to make two sets
OF reports and will necessitate one set
of officers to attend both courts,
which cannot be done except by depu-
ties. There is no necessity for an ap-
pellate court in this state. The SUI
preme court is enough. / much prefer
a commission under the supervision
of the supreme court in order that
the business of that body might be
brought up to date. The commission
is not permanent court and may be
abolished at any time; but when we
get an appellate court it is a perma-
nent institution and the necessity is
not such as to warrant it's establish
ment.
another thing. The supreme court
now has six judges, an even number
that enables them to make practically
two courts OF themselves. In assigning
the causes certain number of cases
will be assigned to three of their NUM-
Der and the remainder to the other
three judges, SO that we never get the
opinion of the entire court. l would
prefer as one remedy, which is incor-
porated in the bill, for the trouble now
existing that the number OF supreme
court judges be reduced to five in or
der that the division might not exist
and then in all probability we would
get, the opinion OF the entire court
upon the determination Of a case,
whereas we now usually get by three"
W. w. Epps.
81 am in favor of the main features
of the bill. / have long been OF the
opinion that our judiciary system in
Iowa could be greatly improved. {
would like to add section providing
for the election in each judicial district
LOT a chancery judge to have exclusive
jurisdiction in chancery and hold
chancery term of court. 7 would have
| it non-partisan, the judge to be NOM
mated by the united bars of each coun-
| ty in the district. This would give
some dignity to our chancery, docket,
which is often the most important one.
The bill should reduce the number Of
supreme court judges to five members.
| believe litigants should have the right
to appeal to the supreme court in all
cases in which the court is not unani-
nous. would favor fixing the salary
of the judges Of this court and of the
supreme court at $4,000 per annuln;
this would be an inducement for a
better grade of lawyers, to consent to
take the positions which tend to eie-
vate the standard of the, court"
e. e. McElroy.
SIT divides cases. Sends part to the
supreme court and part to the appel
late court; decisions in each are bind
ing. do not think anything is to be
gained. We would have to try our
cases just the same, argue them just
the same. We had an appellate court
years ago on somewhat different lines
than this one, and we had to go thru
two courts then before the case was
finally disposed of. It seems to me
that something ought to be done to
dispose OF cases faster, but think
it would be better to divide the SUI
preme court into two divisions, one
criminal and one civil
W. w. Cory.
81 think by all means there should
be some remedy afforded by which
cases could be gotten thru the SUI
preme court more readily, as it is now
behind in its business one year or about
that. + think the limit of jurisdiction
is fixed too high, as comparatively few
cases involve $4,000. I think $500 or
81, 1000 would be really high limit TO
jurisdiction. While I think relief
should be given, yet do not know
whether it should be along this line or
not"
F. 6. Orelup.
81 think it would be a very good
thing for the reason that it would
expedite matters and would not take
SO long for a case to be finally termin-
ated. With our supreme court the way
| it is today. it is filed with work and
| it is impossible to get an action before
it within eighteen months from the
time it reaches that court. This appel
late court would practically sift the
greater from the lesser cases. I have
no idea it will become law. It would
take a great deal of work off Of the
a saving in time both to the clients and
attorneys"
w. ID. Tisdale.
Mr.. Tisdale was non-committal so
far as expressing an opinion relative to
the merits OF the bill, but said that
he tlhOurht there was some necessity