The Penn's Grove record., 1903-08-21
nrRrcATE COURT SYSTEM.

MTRIcATE CoURT SYSTEM.
Proposed Constitutional Amends
ments do not go to the Root Of the
Trouble.
Charles H. Hartshorne in New jersey
Law journal 70, July
We have a curiousIy interesting system
of coArts and procedure. Its fundamen-
tai architecture is English Of the our
tenth and fifteenth centuries. We have
at sundry times torn out great sections Of
the old building and piece by piece, have
added wings and ~"leantos, so that the
whole structure is now very quaint and
picturesque indeed. Note what the
names suggest: Court Of Quarter Ses-
sions, Court Of Oyer and Terminer,
Court Of Common Pleas, Orphans Court,
Circuit Court, Supreme Court, Preroga-
tive Court, Court of Chancery, Court Of
Errors and Appeals. Mark the contrast
in Massachusetts, where the list is: Su-
preme Court, Superior Court, county
courts Of probate and insolvency, and
that is all, above the municipal courts.
You must be careful how you walk in
these our halls OF justice, for it, by mis-
take. Won enter one with a legal controv-
ersy. which belongs to another, you will
be elected and fined in costs. Some OF
them, too, have different entrances for
different kinds of cases, and it is deemed
of essential importance that in bringing
this case you enter by this door, and,
with that case, that door. If you mis-
take in your choice, you will be mulcted
in costs and perhaps turned out or COM
PEELED to retrace your steps. This, by
force of the ancient traditions which have
governed our craft since the days OF the
Edwards, Kings OF England. But the
structure and its traditions, SO interesting
to antiquarians, are somewhat inconven-
lent for the uses ofthe twentieth century.
Until recently these Inconvenience were
experienced only by suitors. They wait
ed while the lawyers disputed before the
judges, for months or years, through
which door or into which court the con-
troversy ought to have been carried.
A century ago people had time for
such delays. While it was only the suit.
ors who waited, we lawyers did not deem
the inconvenience ~unbearable, for in the
settlement of these points Of procedure
very interesting to us-We found much to
do, and on the decision of each point
costs accrued to the lawers on both sides,
the only question being which of the OPP.
posing litigants must pay them. In the
phrase of Wall street, there was an FAC.
tive market" But recently our business
has accumulated SO fast that it threatens
congestion in the Court of Appeals. We
may have to wait for a hearing in all oul
cases, including those which, to the sur.
prise of the litigant on the one side, and
to the CONSERVATION of his opponent,
we have made to turn upon these latent
and interesting points of procedure. Oul
clients must wait, too; but if that were
all, it is probable taat we could endure
it. We do not complain when, upon q
prompt hearing, the Court Of Appeals de,
cides that we began in the wrong court,
that our client must pay costs and begin
ove again. Who thinks of a constitu.
tional amendment to stop that delay I
But if we must wait, as well as our clients,
it will indeed become intolerable. Sc
we, through our State Bar Association,
have determined to make a reform by a
constitutional amendment. True, we
have not gone about it in a very states.
manlike way. We have made no inquiry
respecting the great tide of iitsNlieisLre
form that has swept over America, En-
gland and her colonies during the last
century. "What have we to do with
abroad?" And, in respect to legal pro.
cedure, everyplace beyond New York
and Pennsylvania is "abroad" to us law.
yers. 1t seemed to be much simpler to
add another lean-to our judicial struct-
ure. We want a new court, a new Court
of Appeals.
It is true that neither the United States
nor any other State in the Union, except
New York, has a Court of Appeals above
its Supreme Court. 1t is also true that
New Jersey has more kinds of courts
than any other State. But our present
courts do not suffice to decide our law
suits promptly, which is small wonder,
seeing that our procedure sometimes re-
quires two or three suits to settle one
controversy or, by dint of our dexterous
tripping of each others steps compels
the courts often to hear a single controv-
ersy several times. I have collected, in
a series of articles in The Law Journal,
over fifty reported cases in illustration of
such doings, merely as instances of class
es of other like cases. Travellers some
times ask why we do not simplify our
judicial system and even tell us that in
remote countries, like Connecticut, Can
ada, England and Australia, these prob
lens of simplifying ancient procedure
have been solved in statesmanlike re-
forms in which the mistakes of hasty
States, like New York, have been avoid
ed and which were found satisfactory af-
ter a quarter century, use. But most Of
lis are agreed that such reforms cannot
be successful. 1t is, a priroi, impossible.
Then, too, those regions are too remote
to interest us. / look over the river at
the procedure in New York! And finally,
after all, the costs of these delays do not
fall upon US. So let us ask the people to
give ms a new court. 1t will create five
new ~judgships, each of which ought to
carry a salary Of $l2, 900 to $15 5000; for
the judges of the inferiour Supreme
Court get 1000 and the State will save
the cost $4,000 or Sic, 0O0) Of the pre-
sent Court of Appeals.