The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-12-04
NEED. l( { CIV
Their SONS
Nj. Ihom's Amendm ent is
Adopted.
APPEAL CAsEslNsU PREME COURT
Matter Causes Lively Debate-Want Judges
Elected BY the People Convention to
Meet at 3o'Clock To-Day-Full
Proceedings.


Meet at 3 Clock -Day-Full
Proceedings.
The convention decided yesterday, in
view of the meeting of the Legislature
to-day to hold sessions for the present
beginning at 8 O'clock P. NJ.
Ire new o1Ger goes into effect to-day.
The ,..dy devoted most Of its session I'm
Committee of the Whole) yesterday to
further consideration Of the report OK
the Judiciary Committee.
The first matter disposed of was the
adoption Of the amendment offered by
Mr.. Thorn to section four, striking out
the provision requiring a brief reason in
writing for the rcusal Of an appeal by
the Supreme Court. The amendment was
further debated and adopted by q large
majority.
Several other amendments were offered
and rejected, and Mr.. Withers presented
one providing for the election Of judges OF
the Supreme Court Try popular vote Mr..
O'Flaherty offered a similar one, which
also provided for popular election or
judges. Mr.. Withcrs made an able ar
gCment in favor of his amendment, and
was replied 10 at some length by MT.
Carter. Mr.. OFlaherty was speaking to
his amendment when at 2 o'clock, the
cSnnittee rose and reported to the
convention. That body Immediately ad-
journed until 3 O'clock this afternoon.
DAY IN DETAIL.
The convention met at 10 O'clock; prayer
by Rev. j. J. Gravatt, OF the Episcopal
Church. Sixty-tllree members answered
the roll-call.
Mr.. Jones, of Pittsylvania. introduced,
by request, a resolution declaring that no
town of less than 2CoO population shall
be allowed to create a bonded debt.
Mr.. Turnbull offered u resolution that
when the convention adjourn 1T
be to meet at 9 O clock Wednesday. This
was adopted.
The convention went into Committee
Of the Whole to consider the judiciary
report. Mr.. Boaz presiding.
The amendment offered by Mr.. Thorn
to section I, striking out the reuuirel ca:
of brief statement in writing of refusal
for granting an appeal, was takc:' w.
Mr.. Meredith opposed The amendment.
He contended that all the proposition Of
the committee meant wa, that !hen a
man was refused by the court the ,,-ivl-
lege Of an appeal he ought to know the
reason why he was refused a hearing. IT
was a startling Injustice I" Place a 'nan
convicted OF a death penalty, ana put his
lie III lUS TudlttS III J,!lSe, WHO, ~
simply saying. T will not grant you IN
appeal without giving any reason
whatever, can se:id HIM to the galloys.
He aid the p..rpose Of the amendment
seened to be to see how much protection
could be given to the court ard how lit
tie to the citizen.
SOME COMPARISONS
The speaker then said that the Vir-
ginia Supreme Court was not over
worked. He said Virginia had decided
rs cases, while Illinois had 500, Massa-
chusetts over 500, and others in like
proportion He strongly criticised the
letter of the Supreme Court Reporter,
saying the members of the Supreme
Court were now worked nearly to death,
and that former members of the CO. TT
died from overwork. He commented on
the statement that one-third of the APP
plicants for appeals were denied by the
Supreme Court of Virginia without
word of explanation why it was done.
He earnestly urged the adoption Of the
recommendation made by the commit
tee.
Judge Hancock spoke in favor of the
amendment He asked what arthly good
it would do man who was refused an
appeal to have reason for il in writing.
He said a man that was hung wouldn't
care much to have placed in his coffin
u written rOpllllOu Dis W WHY nc vas -
fused an appeal. 1t would not do him
any good in the resurrection or on the
day of judgment Great laughter)
Mr.. R. Walton Moore: 1T would sat
isfy his curiosity"
Mr.. Meredith: "Does the gentleman
from Fairfax, as a lawyer, give any such
reason to base his approval Of the
amendment on?"
Mr. Moore: 81 can't see that the re-
auirement of the committee Will nave
any other practical result.
able argument. intersperseo with flashes
of ridIcule, wit. and humor, in support
of the amendment.
HAD AUTHORITY FOR IT.
Mr. R. Walton Moore said he was au-
thorized by Chairman Hunton to state
that majority of the Judiciary Com
mittec was in favor of the amendment
offered by Mr. Thorn. He said that until
he came to the convention, he had never
heard the present custom OF the court
criticised The Federal Constitution dld
not require a written opinion IN any case.
Such a provision as the report requires
was not in the Constitution Of any other
State in tile Union. He could not see
what was to be accomplished by it eS-
cept to crafty the curiosity of the attor-5
ney who was refused an appeal
1t would practically amount to an APP
peal in every case, and that would work
to the advantage of a rich litigant who
could wear out a poor sutton or defend
ant by holding. up every case that was
tried by an expensive appeal to the SUI
prenle Court.
He said one reason other States had so
many more Supreme Court decisions
than that Of Virginia. was because the
Constitution Of Virginia required written
opinions in every case that was decided.
4. He then read a letter from Judge James
Keith, Of the Supreme Court, showing
the number OF applications for appeals
that had been refused in the past several
wears, and strongly opposing the require
ment Of a written opinion in refusing an
appeal.
The .letter was written in response to d
request from Mr.. Moore.
Chairman Hunton thanked Mr.. Moore
for speaking for him so we'll, but he
wished to add that three members of the