The San Francisco call., 1904-11-02
new TRIBUNALS
ARE NECESSARY
Chief Justice Beatty Gives
Reason for the Need of
District Courts of Appeal
WOULD OBVIATE DELAY
Work of Supreme Bench Two
Years Behind, Owing to the
Increase of New Cases

Several days ago w. S. Goodfellow,
chairman of the committee of the Bar
Association. wrote to the Hon. W.. H.
Beatty, Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court in relation. to the proposed con-
stitutional amendment for the crea-
ton of District Courts of Appeal. The
communication requested the Chief
Justices views on the question, which,
it says, is of grave public Importance,
with a view to furnish information to
voters not conversant with the meas
ure.
In reply Chief Justice Beatty sent
the following letter:
SAN FRANCISCO, October 81, 1904.
W. S. Goodfellow. Chairman of Committee. San
Francisco Bar Association
Dear Sir: In complying with your request
for an expression Of my views regarding the
proposed amendment to the constitution estab-
fishing District Courts of Appeal l cannot with
the time at my disposal enter into details, but
must content myself with general statement
OF the reasons why, in my opinion, the people
of the State would act wisely in adopting the
present amendment as they did in rejecting the
amendment proposed four years ago.
The necessity of providing tribunals for the
enforcement of private rights and the redress
of private wrongs as well as for the punish
ment OF public offenses is universally recog
nized. 1t is perhaps not so generally recog-
nized that justice delayed is in many instances
justice denied in the case OF the private liti-
ceedings impairs the efficacy of penal legisla-
tion but those who have the best opportunities
of observing know that such is the fact.
Assuming. then. that few desire what no
one has proposed) TO abolish the right Of ap-
peal in those classes of cases, civil and crimi-
nal, in which appeals have been allowed ever
since the first establishment of our State gov
ernment, and recognizing the fact that until
some radical and utterly improbable change Is
made In our fundamental law. appeals will
continue to be taken with the effect of holding
In In suspense the rights Of private parties. and
the punishment of ,wrongdoers, until they
be finally disposed of, it is matter of grave
concern that the Supreme Court OF the State
has been for years steadily falling behind with
It's work until now an ordinary civil cause
cannot be heard, much less decided, until
more than two years after the record has been
sent up. The preference given to certain
and eminent domain-only makes matters
worse for the others, and If the court did not
feel constrained in the exercise OF its discre-
ton to make special orders advancing the
hearing of cases of peculiar hardship the In
evitable delay would result in an absolute fall
ure of justice. Appeals TO this discretion are.
however, precarious and insufficient remedy
for a growing evil even as things are, and
they are progressing must soon to afford
adequate relief.
So far as 1 have observed this unfortunate
condition Of the business of the court has not
been attributed to any lack of industry on the
part of the Justices, and yet from the first
organization of the present court they have
never been able, unassisted, to keep its dock
cts clear. 1t was in 1885 that the assistance
of three Commissioners was found necessary,
and not long afterward this number was in
creaed to nve. For a time, with their help,
the court made gains upon its arrears
and If the business had not largely increased
II might at least have kept even.
But Its business has Increased in full
proportion to the growth and develop
ment OF the State, not only in the number-of
appeals and original proceedings. but in the
complexity and difficulty of the questions pre-
sented for solution. This is especially true Of
the large and increasing class Of cases arising
out of disputed water rights The result is as
above stated that more than two
years behindhand, and new cases coming
In faster than the old ones can be decided.
1t is asserted-with how much truth l do
not know-but 1t seems not improbable, that
one great evil resulting from this unfortunate
condition is that II encourages appeals for
purpose except for the consequent delay and
the opportunity of forcing the compromise of
just claims by litigants who cannot AFFORD to
walt. In criminal there is no doubt that
appeals are often taken for delay and as little
doubt that such appeals are source of heavy
the added expense Indirectly resulting from
the impaired efficiency of punishment long de-
layed as means of Geterrng others from the
commission of ofenses involving the like pen
alties.
So much for the evils of the situation That
the proposed amendment If adopted would af-
ford an adequate remedy l have little doubt.
IT is now about twelve years that these mat
ters have been under discussion, and various
plans for relief have been thoroughly consid-
cred. To every plan suggested there have been
objections more or less substantial plausi-
Bile: The plan proposed four years ago and
defeated by the people was in my opinion
open to grave objection. and the voters OF the
State were well advised in refusing to ratify
1t. The present plan avoids those objections
and is recommended by experience of the sue
cessful working Of substantially the same
amendment to the Federal system and to the
constitutions of some of our sister States 1t
is undoubtedly the best plan so far suggested
that has the least chance of success either in
the Legislature or before the people. and II
defeated leaves the situation hopeless of relief
The objection that 1t involves some increase
OF expense Is an objection which applies with
equal force to every scheme ever proposed
except the plan of limiting the right of ap-
peal which has thus far met with no favor
But this objection is exaggerated. The ad-
ditional outlay might easily be kept within
$50. 600 per anpum and this would be largely
compensated by the diminished expense to the
counties in criminal prosecutions. But II there
were no such compensation the speedy ending
.of private controversies would be well worth
the entire cost.
The further objection that litigation would
be protracted by second appeals from the
district courts to the Supreme Court is / be-
litve illusory. No doubt there will be ne
titions for rehearing in the Supreme Court
after decision by the district courts but there
Is no reason to suppose that such rehearines
will be allowed in any larger proportion than
ADVERTISEMENTS.