The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1910-12-06

4 legislative commission appointed by
joint resolution Of congress to revise
the procedure In the United States
courts has as ret made no report.
Cnder the 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 the federal courts OF frst instance.
In view Of the heavy burden OF press
ing litigation which that court has had
to carry. with one or two OF its mem
hers incapacitated through III health.
il has not been able 10 take up prob
lens OF improving the equity proce-
dure. which has practically remained
the same since the organization OF the
court In 1TS9. II Is reasonable to ex-
nect that with all the vacancies upon
the court fiiled 1t will take up the
question OF cheapening and simplify
ing the procedure In equity In the
courts Of the United States. The eQui-
ty business is much the more impor-
tant In the federal courts and. may.
add. much more expensive.
! am strongly convinced that the
best method OF improving judicial pro-
cedurc Mt law Is to empower the SUI
preme court to do II through the me-
dunn Of the rules of the court. ~ In
equity. This Is the way In which II
has been done in England. and thor
onghly done. The simplicity and ex-
pedition of procedure In the English
form OF other systems.
- . ~ -
England and Of the chief Justices have
left their lasting impress upon the his
tory Of their country by their construc-
tive ability in proposing and securing
the passage of remedial legislation ef-
fecting law reforms. I cannot con-
ceive any higher duty that the su-
preme court could perform than In
leading the way to a simplification Of
procedure In the United States courts-
Unnecessary Appsais.
No man ought to have - Z matter
Of right review Of his case BY the
supreme court He should b sat1alsed
by one hearing before court Of drst
instance and one review by court of
appeals. The proper and chief useful.
ness Of the supreme court. and espe-
cially Of the supreme court Of the
United States. n Ia the cases which
come before 1t 20 to expound the law.
and especially the fundamental law-the
constitutions to furnish precedent1
for the inferior courts In future litiga-
ton and for the executive odacars In
the construction Of statutes and thu
performance OF their legal duties.
Therefore any provisions for review
of cases by the supreme court that
cast upon that court the duty OF pass
ing on questions Of evidence and the
construction Of particular forms Of In
stTuments. like indictments or Wills
or contracts. decisions not OF general
application or importance. merely clog
and burden the court and render more
dimcult its higher function. which
makes It 10 important 4 part Of the
framework OF our government The
supreme court IN now carrying an un-
necessary burden OF appeals Of this
kind, and earnestly urge that II b
removed.
| The statutes respecting the review
by the supreme court OF tho United
States Of decisions OF the court Of
appeals Of the District Of Columbia
ought to be 90 amended AZ to place
that court In the same position with
respect to the review OF its decisions
| az that OF the various United States
circuit courts OF appeals. The act OF
March 2. 1907, authorizing appeals by
the government from certain judg-
| ments in criminal cases where the de-
PENDANT has not been put In jeopardy.
| within the meaning Of the constitution,
/ should be amended 30 that such ap-
| peals should be taken to tho circuit
courts of appeals instead Of to the su-
| preme court In all cases except those
involving the construction Of the con-
stitution or the constitutionality Of Z
statute, with the same power In the su-
preme court to review on certiorari
as is now exercised by that court over
determinations of the several circuit
courts Of appeals. Appeals from the
United States court In Porto Rico
should also run to the circuit courts Of
appeals Of the third circuit instead Of
| to the supreme court.
These suggested changes would,
am advised. relieve the supreme court
| OF the consideration Of about eighty
cases annually and would be In har-
mony with the theory OF review which
led to the establishment Of the circuit
courts Of appeals and which ! have
stated above.
The American Bar association has
had before 1t the question Of reducing
the burden OF litigation involved In
| reversals on review and new trials or
rehearings and In frivolous appeals In
habeas corpus and criminal cases.
Their recommendations have been en-
bodied in bills now pending In con-
gress. The recommendation are not
radical. but they will accomplish much
II adopted into law, and l earnestly
recommend the passage OF the bills
embodying them.
Injunction eili.
/ wish to renew my urgent recon-
mendafion made In my last annual
message In favo- OF the passage OF q
law which shall regulate the issuing Of
injunctions In equity without notice in
accordance with the best practice now
in vogue in the courts Of the United
| States.
/ regard this OF especial Importance.
first, because 1t has been promised,