Norwich bulletin., 1910-02-18


necticut judiciary carries with it no
criticism of either the service it gives
or the compensation given the judges,
says "Trumbull' in the New York
Sunday Herald 1t is rather an eco
nonlic question so far as question of
this kind can be said to be that The
increase in the price of maintenance
has naturally ATTRACTED attention and
provoked comment but at the same
time if a competent commission should
testify after an investigation of the
expense account that no more money
was expended than the facts warrant
ed the average Connecticut citizen
would adjust himself to the condition.
The lay mind was somewhat misled
by the report of a committee of the
state Bar association with reference
to the proposed adjustment of the
courts of common pleas The COM
Inittee reported that as they were ask
ed to pass upon the simple question
whether those courts should be abol-
ished there was but one thing for
them to reply. Under the rules of
the association they were obliged to
eonfine themselves to the question and 4
not undertake to argue it from some
aware that the members of the bar
would understand why they reported
as they did and gave no thought to
the likelihood of the general public
probable that the general public would
have become interested had it not
been for the attitude taken by other
members of the bar who believe that
the expense of maintaining the judi
ciary could be considerably reduced
without doing an injustice to anybody
or clogging the wheels of justice.
There are some interesting facts
which can be quoted which at least
theoretically suggest that a commits
sion of inquiry could make important
suggestions and recommendations In
matters OF this character as in mat
far
ate indulgents in them get into rut
and easily reach the conclusion that
the existing order of things is the best,
that any attempt to change them
would necessarily lead to confusion
worae COMPOUNDED This conclusion
is not altogether convincing to a lay
man, who is more and more impressed
bv the growing demands upon. the
state treasury and the limited re-
sources of the commonwealth The re-
cent heavy issuance of bonds has set
many people thinking who have not
been in the habit of following matters
of that sort, and the fear is frequently
expressed that the little state of Con-
necticut may be biting off more than
it can chew. / do not assert that this
is SO, but it does in a measure meet
the criticism that the state must in
the years to come exercise the best
possible sense of economy and intro
duce strictly business habits of con-
troll or there will be the dickens to pay.
Considered Long Ago
AS far back as 1884 the courts of
common pleas came under the con-
sideration of a commission of which
William Hammersly of Hartford, since
a. justice of the supreme bench, was
chairman. / am sorry have been I'M
able to place my hands upon that re-
port in order to study more carefully
his colleagues advised a reorganization
of those courts suggests that they
were far from sure that they were
needed even in their form at that time.
In 1899 a commissioner appointed by
the then Governor Cooke to inquire
into state receipts and expenses made
thorough investigation into court
expenses and made specific recon-
mendationS. 1t may be worth while
to quote from that part of their re-
port to this effect:
Tn the matter of courts of COM
mon pleas and the Waterbury district
court we are of the opinion that radi-
cal changes should be made. We be-
lieve that these courts can be dis
pensed with and their work as well
done by the superior court. By adding
three to the number of superior court
judges the three larger counties, Hart
ford, New Haven and Fairfield, can
each have two judges for the full court
year AS the five smaller counties
would not require the services of a
judge in each instance for the full
years. MiddleseX, Windham and Toll
land being able. under present cir
cum stances, to transact their business
without the aid of a common pleas
court, there would be much time when
one or more of the five judges assign
ed to the smaller counties could if
needed, assist in the despatch of bust
ness in the three larger. This would
certainly result in large saving to
the state. First. in doing away with
the salaries and expense of mainte-
nance of separate court; second, in
shortening the time during which
prisoners are held in the county jails
while awaiting trial, thereby 1essening
the amount paid for board of prison.
ers. We are strong in the faith that
if the recommendations herein made
meet with your approval that there
will result to the state very material
saving in expense with no impairment
of the public service
An Expensive Judiciary. 4
In the last thirty years the cost of
maintaining the Connecticut judiciary
has increased rapidly. The figures are 4
In 1878 the courts of the state cost in
round numbers $183.0O0. Ten years 1
later the cost had increased to $685.
600. in 1896 to $369.000, in 1908 to
crease in the cost of maintaining the
courts of common pleas is impressive.
In 1887 these courts cost $4,000, in
1896 they cost $4,000, in 1908 they
COSI lt1C Icii0SOllS llS uIt VI 9IOu,OUO
In other words, these five courts of
common pleas, together with the Wa
terbury district court are expending
almost one-ouarter of the amount ex-
pended on the courts of the state.
Careful inquiry shows that for some
reason or other with which / am not
familiar, the neighboring states fail to
show such a large expense per capita.
For example, at the time the commits
sion of 1899 made. their report. the
state of Maine expended on it's judi
ciary Z IA cents per capita; New
Hampshire 11-6 cents; Vermont 1877
cents; Massachusetts al: New Jersey
14.2. with Connecticut 49.1. Today the
cost per capita in the state OF Connec-
ticut is much in excess of fifty cents |
In using these figures in order to de-
termine whether the courts of common
pleas are giving a service commensu- |
with the they