New-York tribune., 1901-04-22
REFERENCES AND SPOILS.

When the justices of the Appellate Division
and the members of the Bar Association re
gardless Of party. join in protesting against
proposed measure changing the conduct Of lti-
cation it behooyes the legisatu ture TO go slow.
The bill providing for a board of referees
for the First Judicial Department and de-
priving the justices of the Supreme Court here
of the right they have long exercised, which
The justices in other departments will continue
TO exercise If the measure becomes a law, is
merely a scheme of a few men 10 grab patron
age and has no respectable support in this
county, which alone ii affects. Ii is Of doubt
ful constitutionaty, ii is partial legislation of
the most glaring sort. and the patronage which
it seeks 10 bestow upon the appellate justices
is not desired by them, but protested against
as an improper burden
Why should legislature very largely com
posed as Speaker Nixon said the other day.
''of rural members force upon this county
system Of judicial procedure which local pub
lie sentiment does not demand and which the
lawmakers do not think of establishing in
their own sections of the State: What has
aroused them TO this peculiar interest in the
appointment of referees IN New-York County?
Are they better judges of the proper method OF
conducting here than Charles +. Van
Brilnt, Edward Patterson Morgan j. OBrien.
William Rumsey and Chester b. Mclaughlin:
The TWO men last mentioned are Republicans
from up the State whose opinion is entitled 10
weight with rural lawmakers. even IL they do
discount the views OF Democratic judges,
though they seem 10 trust them sufficiently TO
make them The appointing power for the pro-
posed board Of referees. II they convinced
that their scheme Is good one why do they
not apply il 10 the whole State: Even they
Will not pretend that human nature is differ
ent in the other departments. II judges here
aps soint friends TO references. shey do else
where The condition OF the Brooklyn courts
Is essentially similar to that of the Manhattan
courts A reform that IS needed in one bor-
ough would certainly be good for the other,
since the same lawyers ard the same litigants
be found in both. A measure which
takes away from the justices in Manhattan
functions which those In Brooklyn and the rest
Of the State continue 10 perform Is grossly and
wantonly insulting. even if ii is constitutional.
There is no trying 10 dress this reference
bin up in any guise of reform. 1t is just
plain. vulgar strike for spoils We do not know
and We do not care just who want those spos.
Whoever they are they are hoping 10 get some
thing out OF il for themselves The bill does not
provide any relief for litigants from extrava-
CANT fees. nor offer any more speedy determine
ton of cases. IT merely seeks TO take from the
many lawyers who now act from time 10 time
referees the fees AT present paid and confer
them all on a handful of men who may have the
influence 10 secure designation 10 the rich posts
of permanent referees. 1t depriyes the justices
of all discretion 10 select referees with view
10 their special fitness 10 aid the court in de-
partments of law 10 which they are particularly
trained. 1t makes reference hit or miss af
fair beyond the control of the litigants or the
Judge merely TO divide the enormous sum total
Of referees fees In the Supreme Court among
twenty men. The imposition of such law
upon this department would be utterly without
excuse and would be widely resented by men of
all parties. Certainly the Republican legsla
ture. which hopes TO see this city rescued from
Tammany next fall. could he engaged in better
business than that