New-York tribune., 1901-11-17
THE REFEREE SYSTEM.
GEST 4 REMEDY EOR PRESENT DEFECTS

THE BAR ASSOCIATION ASKED TO sCG-
GEST A REMEDY FOR PRESENT DEFECTS
To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: Your readers will recall the bill relating
the appointment of referees, which passed by
the Assembly few minutes before its adjourn
rnent last spring and was subsequently vetoed by
the Governor The bill thoroughly bad, and
vigorously opposed before the Governor by
the Bar Association Of this city. The avowed OBJ
ject Of this measure TO do away with some Of
the defects of the referee system. The bill would
have accomplished this. but the discussion be
fore the Governor and in the legislature brought
out prominently the necessity Of some legislation
on this important subject.
The heavy fees OF referees. the large bills for
stenographers' minutes, and the very great delay
from which Htigants whose referred
suffer only too frequently some of the serious
defects in the referee system. Whether II is posi-
bic TO cure these defects by legislation the Bar
Association will, hope. undertake to pass upon,
and / hope that that body, whose judgment carries
such weight in Albany, will prepare bill curing
the evils of the system. advise the Legislature
and the Governor that legislation cannot bring
about any substantial In fact. 1t ought to
do this.
The matter is by no means simple one. 1t
raises the whole question of whether not the
referee system is a good method of disposing Of
cases. very important matter is, of course, the
capacity o. referee. Many a referee has
criticised by lawyers. Htgants and appellate courts
who lacking the training of a trial judge has
made serious mistakes during the trial: and every
Judge knows that II takes a long time and hard
work the bench to learn the judicial side OF the
legal trade But If experienced lawyers alone
selected referees. il would be found that
they would be either unwilling act,
often unwilling try cases. from day to day. until
disposed of. would be done were the case tried
in court Such method Of trial would seriously
interfere with active lawyers practice. and he
could not probably afford to hear case In this
Again. many rtigants think 1t wrong that
pense Of the unsuccessful party, far the ref
erees fees concerned. and this feeling is in
tensifed when a has been dragged out for
erees, and the referees fees amount to large fig
with the aid of stenographer. and the stenog-
raphers' fees under the present system an
unavoidable burden-and very heavy one.
1t is of course. not necessary to discuss certain
practices in references Of a certain kind. which
have made many persons look with great dsfavor
on all references Whether. now. the appointment
practice law. but who shall attend alone to the
trial of Ia scheme which has been suggested
by some) will do any real sood 1t Is hard to say
pleasure upon the old Masters of Chancery. sys-
tenn. And yet Masters of Chancery exist in Ger
tain States and the system is said to work well
there. and they were for long time success In
of itself will bring about the appointment of
body of referees whose reputation shall be as
that of the Supreme Court, and il will always be
the judges who must ultimately select the referees.
entirely new system for their appointment be
evolved. If the Bar Association in this city will
undoubtedly Will carry great weight at Albany
New-York Nov. II, 1901. GHERADI DAVIS.
THE justices of the Supreme Court are ap-
parently opposed to system of salared ref
erees