The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-12-07


advantage In a legal contest with a cor
/ pora ton or a rich opponent. Tho ncces-
sity FOR tho reform cAigts both I'm United
| states courts and In all state courts In
/, order To bring II about. hoWoYor. II nat
urally falls TO the general government b.
its example 10 furnish model to all
! states.
| 4 legislative commission appointed bs,
! joiut resolution OF congress 10 revise the
! procedure in the United States courts
! has al yet made no report
| Under tho law the supreme court OF
! the United States has the power and is
| given the duty TO frame the equity rules
Of procedure which are TO obtain in tho
! federal courts Of first instance In view
| Or the heavy burden OF pressing litigation
! which that court has had TO carry with
one or two OF its members incapacltated
| through III health. VI has not been able
TO take mp problems OF improving the
equity procedure. which has practically
| remained the Same since tho organiza-
! tlon OF the court In 1889.
| 1t Is reasonable 10 expect that With all
I tho vacancies upon the court filed, il
VIII take up the question OF cheapcnlng
} aud simplifying tho procedure In equity
] In the courts Of thc United States. The
/ equity business is much the moro inn
porlant In the federal courts. and I may
add much tho more expensive. I am
strongly convinced that the best method
| Of improving judicial procedure at law
i3 TO empower tho supreme court 20 do
Il through tho medium OF the rules OF
tho court as in equity.
This Is The way in which u has been
done in England. and thoroughly done.
Tho simplicity and expedition OF proceed
ure in the English courts today mako
model for tho reform OF other gystcnG
Several OF the lord chancclIors OF Eng
land and Of The chief Justices have left
their lasting impress upon tho history OF
their country by their constructive abi
ity in proposing and securing tho passage
NJ remedial Legislation effccting law re-
forms. 7 cannot conceive any higher
duty that the supreme court could per-
form than In leading tho way 10 y aim
piincstiop Of procedure In tho United
States courts.
RELIEF or SUPREME COURT FROM
UNNECESSARY APPEALS.-No nsu
ought 10 have. as a matter Of right. a
He should be satisfied by ono hearing
before court OF first instance and ono
review by court Of appeals. The prop
er and chief usefulness or tho supreme
court, and especially OF the supreme court
OF the United States, is, in the cagcs
which come before II. so 10 cXpound the
law and especially the fundamental law
the constitution, AZ 10 furnish precc-
dents for tho inferior courts I'm future
litigation aud for the executive officers
In the construction OF statutes and the
performance OF their legal dutIcs
Therefore any provisions for rcyicw OF
cases by The supreme court that cast
upon that court the duty OF passing on
QUESTIONS or cNl0CnC0 ana inc COnSiTtlC-
ton of particular forms OF instruments.
Ike indictments, or Wills, or contracts,
decisions not OF general application or
importance. merely clog and burden the
court and render more difficult its high
or function. which makes II so import
ant part OF the framework Of our gov
crnmcnt. Tho supreme court ie now
carrying an unnecessary burden OF ap-
pcals OF this kind and / earnestly urge
that IL be removed.
Tho statutes respecting tho review by
the supreme court OF the United States
OF decisions OF the court OF appeals of
the District of Columbia ought TO be
go amended as 10 place that court in the
same position with respect 10 tho review
of its decisions as that OF the various
United States circuit courts OF appeals
The act OF March ?. 1907, authorizing
appeals by thc government from certain
Judgments In criminal cases wherc tho
defendant has not been put IN lcopa rdy.
within tho meaning Of tho constitution.
shouId bc amended 90 that such appeals
should be taken 10 the circuit courts of
appeals Instead of 10 tho supreme court
In All cases except those involving tho
construction nj the constitution or the
constitutionaity Of statute with the
sumo power In the supreme court TO re-
view on ccrtiorsri as is now exercised by
that court over determinations OF the
several circuit courts Of appeals Ap-
pcals in copyright cases should reach
final judgment in the courts OF appeals
instead OF the supreme court as now.
The decision ot the courts OF appeals
should be made final also In all cases
wherein jurisdiction results on both ad
verse citizenship and the existence of a
federal question, and not as now be
roviewable in the supreme court whom
the case involved more than $1,000. APP
pcals from the United States court In
Porto Rico should also run 10 the circuit
courts OF appeals OF the third circuit in
stead Of 10 tho supreme court.
These suggested changes would. | am
advised. relieve the supreme court OF
the consideration of about eighty cases
annually. and would be in harmony with
the theory OF roYicw which led to the
appeals and which i have stated above. |
The American Bar association has had
before II the question OF reducing the
burden of litigation involved in Ievcrsals !
on rcvlew and new trials or rehearings
and In frivolous appeals in habcas corpus
and criminal cases. Their recommends
tlons have been embodied In bills now
pending In congress. Tho recommcnda |
tlons not radical. but they will ac-
complisb much II adopted into law, and |
! earnestly recommend tho passage OF
the bills embodying them.
INJUNCTION BILL wish TO renew |
my urgent recommendation mado in my
last annual message in favor OF the |
passage OF a law which shall regulate |
out notice In accordance with the best |
practice now In vogue in the courts of
the. United States regard This OF es-
pecial Importance, first because IL has |
been promised. and, second. because IL
will deprive those who now complain OF |
certain alleged abuses in the improper Is
suing of injunctons without notice of
any real ground for further amendment |
and will take away all semblancc OF sup
port for the extremely radical legislation |
they propose. which Will be most per-
nicious if adopted. will sap the founda
lions OF judicial power, and legalize that
cruel social instrument, the secondary
boycott.
JUDICIAL SALARIES,-I further rec
to congress the passage OF the |
bill now pending for the increase in the
salaries OF the federal Judges. by which
the chief justice Of tho supreme court
shall receive Sl7.500 and the associate
justices SIT, 900 tho circuit judges consti-
iuting the circuit court OF appeals shall
rereiYc 100000. and The diaLrlct Judges