The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-11
Letters to The Editor.
The Proposed Consolidation of Courts
 in Montgomery County.

A 1AoAtSoAhcIy SoJ
 Editor The Advertiser.
 In view of the public interests involved, ana the fact that 1 introduced the Dill 70 consondate the courts in thls county nope - may not be considered lnappro- priate Tor me at this time to make some suggestions of law and fact which do not appear to have occurred to you in writing the editorial of the 10th instant. headed
 montgomery is entitled to one constitu- tional court" The Constitution or lsoI provides that Tn counties havlng sm1 t,,re Ue
 more courts of record the Legislature
 may provide for the consolidation or ali or any such courts of record, except the
 Probate Court, with or without separate
 Qivisions, and sufficient numoer oL
 Judges for the transaction of the business
 of such consolidated court" and again,
 The Legislature shall have the power
 to abolish any court, except the supreme
 court and the Probate Courts, whenever
 US Jurisdiction and functions have been
 conferred upon some other court It
 seems from these provisions that the Con,
 stitution contemplates the consolidation or
 courts in counties situated as Montgomery
 IS. just as the consolidation bill introduc- Cd by me provides. How then can It De
 said that the bill will leave this county without constitutional court? assume that the mere matter of the name or
 consolidated court is not matter or inn
 portance. The Constitution seems to con tain this idea, for it provides "A Circuit
 Court or a court having the Jurisdiction
 of Circuit Court shall be held in each county. and a 'Chancery Court or court having the Jurisdiction of Chan cery Court shall be held in each district, but l note that for each circuit there shall be chosen a Judge and 2 or each
 division there shall be a Chancellor. And these constitutional provisions suggest difhculties in the way of having more than one Circuit Judge or Chancellor In any one county, circuit or division so it seems that the city, or some similar courts, not callsd Circuit or Chancery Courts. are the courts for the future for porulous and wealthy counties.
 As to the need for more than two judges, I desire to call your attention to some facts. During the year 1902
 there were brought into the City Court or Montgomery S92 cases. distributed as follows: Criminal, 415; civil law SIS; equity, 259.
 During the same period there were nine cases brought into the Chancery Court and an average of thirty cases for each term or the circuit court, which were, as
 l am informed, for the most part, cases appealed from justices of the peace. l think 1t is fair inference that many of
 these cases were appealed to that court
 in order that they might not be tried too expeditiously for the convenience of the unsuccessful party In the court below
 The judges of the City Court have shown no lack of capacity to try all the cases brought there. If they are overtaxed, they have not said so. In fact, it Is
 known that there were about thousand cases disposed of in that court by one judge during the year 1900. That was un- doubtedly too much for one judge, but was it enough for three? In view of these facts may not inquire if you are not looking a little too far into the future in your demand for three judges to d the business of the county? And may l not also inquire. as having some re- levancy to the present controversy about judicial affairs In this county whether you would be satisfied If the City Court | of Montgomery should be made a con- | stitutional court in such way as to meet | your views of the constitution? Or do l you think 1t necessary to have a con- | stitutional court to try sixty-nine cases a | try 992? Respectfully,
 O. c. Maner.