New-York tribune., 1910-12-07
Judicial Procedure.

DC promptly paid
judicial Procedure
One great crying need in the United States
is cheaDening the cost of litigation by sim
plifying judicial procedure and expediting
final Judgment. Under present conditions
the poor man is a a woful disadvantage IN
q legal contest with a corporation or a rich
opponent The necessity for the reform
exists both in United States courts and IN
all state courts In order 10 bring it about
however. it naturally falls to, the general
government by its example TO furnish a
model TO all states. \ Legislative commits
sion appointed by joint resolution of Con-
gress to revise the procedure in the United
States courts has as yet made no report.
Under the law the Supreme Court OF the
United States has the power and is given
the duty to frame the equity rules of pro-
ccdure which are To obtain in the federal
courts of first instance. In view Of the
heavy burden Of pressing litigation which
that court has had to carry. with one
two of its members incapacftated through
i'll health. il has not been able to take up
problems of improving the equity proceed
ure. which has practically remained the
same since the organization of the court in
1889. II is reasonable TO expect that with
all the vacancies upon the court filed it
will take ND the question of cheapening and
simplifying the procedure in equity in the
courts of the United States. The equity
business is much the more important in The
federal courts. and I may add much the
more extensive. I am strongly convinced
that the best method of improving Judicial
procedure at law Is TO empower the Su-
preme Court TO do it through the medium
of the rules of the court. as in equity. This
IS the wav in which il has been done in
England. and thoroughly done. The sim
plicity and expedition of procedure in the
English courts to-day make model for the
reform of other systems.
Several of the Lord Chancelors of Eng
land and of the Chief Justices have left
their lasting impress upon the history of
their country by their constructive ability
in proposing and securing the passage of
remedial legislation effecting law reforms.
I cannot conceive any higher duty that
the Supreme Court could perform than in
leading the way to a simplifcadon of pro-
cedure in the United States courts.
Relief OF Supreme Court.
No man ought to have as a matter OF
right review OF his case by the Supreme
Court. He should he satisfied by one hear
ing before a court of first instance and one
review by a court of appeals. The proper
and chief usefulness of the Supreme Court,
and especially of the Supreme Court of the
United States, is i'll the cases which come
before it, so TO expound the law, and espe-
cially the fundamental law-the Constttu-
tomas to furnish prccedeuts for the in
ferior courts in future litigation and for the
executive officers in the construction of
.hn perfOrnancP of their legal
duties. Therefore, any provisions for re-
view OF cases by the Supreme Court that
cast upon that court the duty OF passing on
questions of evidence and the construction
of particular forms of instruments. like
indictments. or wills or contracts. decisions
not of general application or Importance.
merely clog and burden the court and rem
der more difficult its higher function. which
makes il important a part OF the frame
work of our government The Supreme
Court is now carrying an unnecessary bur
den of appeals OF this kind. and earnestly
urge that it be removed
The statutes respecting the review by the
Supreme Court OF the United States of de-
trict of Columbia ought 10 be amended
as TO place that court in the same position
with respect To the review of It's decisions
as that OF the various United States Circuit
Courts OF Appeals. The act OF March p
1907. authorizing appeals by the government
from certain Judgments In criminal eases
where the defendant has not been put in
Jeopardy. within the meaning of the Con-
stitution. should he amended so that such
appeals should be taken TO the Circuit
Courts of Appeals instead of TO the SUI
preme Court in all cases except those in
volvinS the construction of the Constitution
or the consttutionality of statute. with
the saine power In the Supreme Court to re-