The Monmouth inquirer. [volume] (Freehold, N.J.) 1865-1933, 1909-08-19
H. C. PITNEY ON
The AMENDMENT
Venerable Ex-ViGe Chancellor
Defines His Position.
TOO MANY JUDGES NOW.

The Present Law Was Framed to
Meet the Needs Of Earlier Times.
Proposed Changes Will Not Work
Particularly For the Benefit of Law
yers as a CIass-No Sudden Shock
In judicial Business.
am requested to state in writing
my reasons for favoring the proposed
| judicial amendments to the constitu-
ton.
| might well answer by saying that
those reasons are accurately and con-
cisely stated by Governor Fort and
Judges Van Syckel, Swayze and
Black in their several monographs on
that topic Nevertheless I viii ven
ture to spend a few words on the man
ifest defects in our present system as
shown by its application to the present
population and business developments
of the state.
Our court of last resort is manifest
! ly and unnecessarily too large. The
maintenance of sixteen men, of whom
nine are necessary to constitute court
and of whom usually twelve or four
teen actually sit in each case, involves
an expense entirely unwarranted and
does not always produce the best re-
suits.
OF course each judge of court of
final appeal should be possessed of a
plentiful brain power, of full learn
ing, of much experience and well
balanced mind And each of these
| judges ought to give his individual
lstudy and consideration to each case.
I say "of course" because conceive
that the proposition just advanced as
to the proper qualifications of judges
is not open to serious dispute.
Waste of Material.
Now, the use of so much valuable
and costly material in that court seems
to me to be a sheer waste. No other
English speaking nation or state in
idulges in it. The United States SUI
preme court consists of nine judges
The great states of New York. Mas
saehusetts and Pennsylvania consist
of seven each. OF these a majority is
a quorum.
Of course well constituted court of
last resort should comprise proper
and safe variety of Judicial minds.
Different minds may and do take diff
ferent views Of the same sets of cir
cuinstances, and out of the COMPARE
son of these varying views are wrought
the safest judgments. But experience
has shown that from five to seven diff
ferent minds are quite sufficient for
that purpose. Any larger number
tends to produce too great a division
of personal responsibility for each
judgment and consequent weakening
of that feeling of personal responsible
ity which each judge ought to feel in
every judgment pronounced. Not only
is that so, but numerous court tends
to promote a disposition and tendency
to follow leader.
Moreover, l am assured by judges
that have sat for years in that court
and am quite ready to believe that
the practical working of SO large a
court not only does not promote and
accelerate the dispatch of business,
but, on the contrary, tends to OBJ
struct and retard it.
Now, these judges are in fact and
of necessity ought to be high priced
men. Men having the qualifications
above mentioned cannot be obtained
at low salary This being so, what
excuse can there be for employing so
many to do the work which can be
done better by less? Would any farm
err, boss mechanic, contractor or bust
ness man of any kind indulge in the
expense of keeping in his employ and
pay fifteen high priced men to do the
work which could be done as well and
better by seven?
How 1t Happened.
| If it be asked how our forefathers
fell into the error of devising such a
court, the answer is easy.
Our first constitution as an indie
/ DeuucnL COlOLJ anu lHCikJleHL Suit
adopted 1776 and under which we
lived until 1914 provided that the
court of last resort should consist of
the governor, who was also chancellor,
and council to consist of one from
each county, seven of whom made a
quorum The judges of the supreme
court were not members of this court.
Well authenticated tradition shows
that in the later years. at least of that
court, the arguments of cases ON APP
peal were not confined to those made
in open court. It's judicial action be-
came uncomfortable and resulted in the
constitutional convention of 1914 and
our present constitution, which abol-
ished the council and made the court
consist of the chancellor, the judges of
the supreme court-then five in num-
Der. now nine-and six judges specially
appointed. These last sit with the
governor and chancellor as court of
pardons. And their compensation was