New-York tribune., 1901-04-08
KILL REFEREES BILL.
so SAYS ASSEMBLYN1AN GHERARDI
DAVIS.
OTHERS JOIN IN CONCERNING IT AS IN
IQUITOUs LEGIsLATION-TEXT OF
THE MEASURE

lbany. April Z (Specall. This bill is an IN
,quitous piece OF legislation and should he
Killed" said Assemblyman Gherardi Davis TO-
day. after reading the bill Of Senator Ellsworth
which has been characterized by many in both
Senate and Assembly as the referees monop-
oily bill"
The provisions of the BILL as outlined in detail
in The Tribune to-day. are the effect that the
Appellate Division Of the Supreme Court IN the
First Judicial District is appoint twenty law
vers. who shall hold office for ten years and re-
ceive all references coming from the Supreme
Court and from the Surrogate's Court in New
York County. Provision is also made that the
Appellate Division be empowered to appoint
twenty permanent referees, who are TO receive
all references from the City Court.
The bin created considerable comment when
first introduced, and many members asked why
bin which only affects New-York County
should have for its sponsor a Senator from the
extreme western county Of Niagara.
Comment, however, had risen TO outspoken
hostility a few days ago when the rumor went
around that Senator Ellsworth intended TO press
the measure. The rumor first denied by
many members, who said the Senator had merely
introduced the bill at the request Of some con-
stituent and had intention of pushing it.
These legislators nevertheless. have since
ed the bin for the purpose Of ''perfecting' IT.
and has had it reported from the Senate Com
mittee on Codes. TO which it referred.
EMPHATIC DENUNCIATIoN
The antagonisrn to the bill comes chiefly, as is
most natural. from the members. both Repubn-
can and Democratic who represent New-York
County, which the bin affects. Those whose at
tention has been called 10 the bill by The Trlb-
une correspondent here unanimously condemn
the measure, and in precise and emphatic
language as that Of Assemblyman Davis. Of the
KKNIth District, quoted above. In speaking
further Of the bill, Mr.. Davis said:
The Tribune to-day has done good service IN
bringing this bill TO the notice OF the public The
Dill is wholly Objectionable, and for the follow
lng reasons:
First-The bill will create monopoly Under
the present law all lawyers Of standing and ex-
perience in their profession have the opportuni-
ty Of obtaining refereeships. Some ap-
pointed by the court and others. in where
both parties consent 10 a reference. chosen
by these parties. Accordingly. the element Of
favoritisn is absent. According 10 this bill. the
twenty lawyers who may chance to be the IA
vorites OF a court TO receive all such ref
erences and all such fees. I see exception is
made that IN cases where both parties desire
referees may be chosen as now by these parties.
but this is the exception not the rule.
Second-The bill does not guarantee the public
efficient men any more than the present law.
On the contrary. If there are incompetent men
in the list OF twenty lawyers the public must en-
dure them for ten whole years at stretch
There is no remedy. no appeal.
Thrd-The bill will demoralize the judiciary
by offering il such an opportunity for wholesale
patronage.
Fourth-The bin is utterly inapplicahle to the
yers for all the references emanating from the
Supreme Court and from the Surrogate's Court
of New-York County would be swamped in a
few days. More than a hundred referees are re-
quired for the vast number Of references which
rome from these courts The bill If enacted