The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1910-09-01
CHANGE OF AppRRss-when
Chllton's Charge Refuted.

~ N'SA 49, ~ hAlNAA 40 E9OON
Democratic authority, should reac
what he has to say in his newspape
concerning the adoption OF al
amendment to the state constitution
providing for an increase of tn,
number OF state supreme judges
and. then 1t is more than likely the,
would cease to rant about fmaginar!
extravaganza of the state govern
ment, in which they include thu
proposition to have two addItlona
state supreme judges.
Mr.. Weir's editorial is merely .
resume of what has been known gen
orally many months, but 1t is an EN-.
phasis of the urgent necessity Of the
amendment. In addition the situa
ton pointed out by him in reference
to the state supreme courts grea,
volume of business and the tremend.
Gus growth of that business refutes
the charge OF extravaganza in gov.
ernmental affairs as all who read
know that the other departments OF
the government have grown at a
rate similar to that of the court
mentioned. Mr.. Weir says:
I'VE are informed by attorneys
who practice. in that court that the
supreme court is about two years
behind with its work, which means
that the tifty-two cases which will
be argued and submitted at Charles
Town, in September next. will not
be decided for about two years. We
can imagine the hardships this delay
will cause. Estates are tied up IN
litigation and cannot be settled until
the court has passed upon the ques-
lions in dispute. The rights OF
properties involving thousands OF
dollars will be unknown until the
court hands down its opinion. This
should not be. Suits should be set
tied speedily and rights Of lltigants
determined.
1.-THE question of how much 1t will
cost to have the rights of parties
speedily determined should never en-.
ter into the controversy, because
justice is not weighed by dollars, but
by the rights OF the litigants, and
they are entitled to know their
rights. and that speedily.
We are informed that the mem.
hers of the supreme court OF appeals
work from ten to fourteen hours
every day, and yet the docket is get.
ting farther and farther behind
Is 1t any wonder that the legislature
has submitted constitutional
amendment to the vote of the people
Mt the coming election, by the
terms of which the court will con
sIst OF seven members instead o.
five? We understand II this amend
ment carries the court will be divid
ed into two sections, and that tht
bushes of the court will be transact
ed much more rapidly than it now /.
with five members. The amendment
contemplates, as we understand
adopting the California system ii
this state. Whatever system i
adopted it should be one that Will
give the litlgant a speedy determine
ton OF his controversy.
Many of the records contain
thousands of printed pages, all o
which the court must read betor
they can determine the question in
volved. 1t should not be a questto
OF the increased cost of two addi
tional judges to the state, but tn
speedy transaction Of the bushes
before the court. Twenty years age
when the court consisted of fou
members, case rarely stayed be
fore the court longer than 81
months. for the reason that theI
was but little business before tn
court at the time, but when we loo
at this docket OF the supreme cou'
we can readily see the increase /
the development OF this state, an
litigants should he furnished wit
courts to speedily hear and dete
mine the controversies betwee
them, and to our mind there shouI
be no question but what the consl
tutlonal amendment should
adopted. without dissenting vote
Chiffon recently made the char;
of extravaganza against the state a
ministration and It is a habit of Il
Democratic press to compare II
present running expenses of the go
ernment with those twenty yea
ago. What Weir says of the court
work twenty years ago and now