Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1910-08-19
THE SUPREME COURT.
R. A. Stone Explains the Sug-
gested Changes.
St. Paul, August IL, 1917

criticised the action of the Minnesota
State Bar Association in recommend
ing change of judicial elections in
this state so that we could have a
non partisan judiciary. You take issue
with the general proposition and argue
for the present system whereby men
are frequently elevated to the bench
not by reason solely of individual
merit and fitness for the position, but
because, in addition to their personal
qualifications, they happen to bear the
Republican or Democratic label.
There is so little reason for the use
of party names and machinery in the
election of judges, and the non parti-
san system is working so well where
ever it is in use, that you will pardon
me if I do not consider that the ques-
ton needs any discussion. | believe
that your own good judgment, applied
to more thorough investigation of
the subject, will lead to reversal of
the opinion which you have already
expressed.
I wish to correct, and this is the
reason for my writing this letter, the
report contained in the Tribune and
many other papers, that the Mime
sofa State Bar Association has recon
mended that the number of Justices
of the Supreme Court be increased
from FIVE to nine. No such recon-
mendation has been made.
The Court as now constituted, con-
sists of Chief Justice and four Asso-.
ciate Justices. Every one in close
touch with its work, knows that there
ought to be two additional Associate
Justices, and that is what the State
Bar Association stands for.
A constitutional amendment is ne
cessary in order there may be an ad-
dition to the Court, and while the
constitution is being amended, if it is
to be changed, it may as well be so
altered as to provide for further en-
largement of the Court, which un-
doubtedly be necessary in the future,
although if the Court is increased to
seven Justices another increase will
not be necessary for great many
years.
But this is not ali, nor is it the most
important thing, recomm ended at the
recent meeting of the Bar Association.
At the present time the Court is in
session continually from the first
Tuesday in October until the middle
of February, and from the first Tues
day in April until the middle of July,
the Justices devoting most of the time
remaining to the preparation of opin-
ions. The daily sessions begin at $3.50
and three cases are heard each day.
Two hours are allowed for the oral
argument of each case, so that if the
full time is taken, and very frequently
it is, they hold an afternoon session
which may continue until 400 O'Clock
or later. This, you see, allows but
little clear time each day for anything
other than the oral argument.
In addition to the oral argument,
there is the record of the trial. These
records range from as few as twenty
to as many as several thousand pages,
many of them extending into two or
| nf
Then there are the briefs or written
arguments on each side. AS applied
to these, the word ''brief" seems jocu-
lar in many instances, for they also
frequently assume the proportions of
good sized book. All of this printed
mat ter must be gone over aad consid-
cred by the Court and mastered es-
pecially by the Justice who is selected
to write the opinion in any given case.
Any man required to do such ex-
acting work ought to devote to it,
without interruption, as many hours
as possible of each working day, in
stead of being able, as now, to give it
not to exceed an hour in the morning
and few more in the afternoon, the
value of the latter being lessened by
the wearisome proceeding hearing of
arguments. This cannot be done un-
der our present system, where the
entire Court hears every argument
except in the absence of Disqualified
ton of one or more of the Justices,
and the Bar Association desires not
only that the Court be increasep from
/ five to seven, but that after such in
Ecrease, only five Justices, except in
cases of unusual Importance, should
| hear the oral argument in each case.
i Under this system, two of the Justices
1 would be in their chambers all the
time, and would not have to spend
the better part of each day, and all of
many days, listening to oral arguments,
| but could devote all Of their energy