The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-10-29

number of the judges of the supreme
court from three to seven Among the
reasons which are given by the friends
of this amendment for its adoption are
the following:
When the constitution of the state was
adopted in 1853 the number Of the judges
of the supreme court was fixed at three
On account of the increase in popula.-
ton, in wealth, in business and trade,
litigation in the state gradually in
creased until it became a matter of ut
ter impOsSibility for the court to trans
act its business, and in the year 1887
was several years behind in its work. To
relieve this situation the legislature Of
1897 created a supreme court commission
of three judges, which aided the supreme
court for the following six years without
materially assisting in the disposal of
the business, because of the imperfec-
tons in the plan adopted
Notwithstanding the aid which this
commission extended the court, in the
year 1895 the supreme court doing all the
work which was possible for the three
judges to do, was behind with the work
about 2,100 cases for nearly six years.
Relief to the court being an imperative
necessity the legislature of 1895 created
the present courts of appeals, composed
of six judges, holding court in as many
different places in the state and having
jurisdiction in civil cases where the
amount IN controversy does not exceed
81 200, and in cases of misdemeanor. To
this court of appeals the supreme court
certified about 800 cases
When the court of appeals expires by
limitation OF law, in January next, there
will be returned to the supreme court
about 500 cases, which together with the
work now on hand will again place the
supreme court about two and One-half
years behind with its work. The court
of appeals system has, as shown by the
records in the office of the auditor of
state, cost the tax payers of the state
about $36, $40 per annum. Should the
proposed amendment prevail, it is be-
heved the supreme court will be able
to promptly dispose of all the work
coming before it, and will cost the state
not to exceed $500 per annun, thus
affecting an annual saving to the tax
payers of the state OF at least $4,000 per
annum. Hence as question OF economy
to the taxpayers of the state as COM
pared with the present court of appeals
system, the measure is one of vast i'm
pOrtance-
The amendment viii furnish the state
with a judicial system which provides
for the hearing and determination by the
highest judicial tribunal of the state of
all causes where the amount involved
exceeds given sum. and a1ordS
speedy, equal and exact justice under
the law, to all litigants alike, and gives
permanent relief to an overcrowded
court that must of necessity have relief
in some way.
We, the undersigned chairmen of the
respective central committees of the
state, approaching the foregoing reasons
Tor the ADOPTION OF the amendment
commend them to the favorable cOnsid-
Grafton of the voters of the state, and
this we do regardless of party politics.
MORTON ALBAUGE4,
Chairman of the Republican State Cen
trail committee
E r RIDGLEY,
Chairman of the Peoples Party State
Central committee.
]. MACK LOVE,
Chairman of the Democratic State Cen
trial committee