Arizona republican., 1910-12-07

damental law-the constitution-as to ! furnish precedents for the inferior courts in future litigation and for the executive officers in the construction i of statutes and the performance of i their legal duties. Therefore, any provisions for the review of cases by 1 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. de- cisions not of general application or importance. merely clog and burden the court and render more difficult iss higher function, which makes # so inn portant 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 l earnestly urge that it be removed.
 The statutes respecting the review by the supreme court of the United States of decisions of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia ought to be so amended as to place that court in the same position with respect to the review of its decisions as that of the various United States
 
 March ?, 1907, authorizing appeals by the government from certain judg- ments in criminal cases where the de- fendant has not been put in jeopardy within the meaning of the constitu- tion, should be amended in that such appeals should be taken to the cir cult courts of appeal instead of to the supreme court in all cases eX- ~l of the constitution or the constitu- tionality of a statute. with the same power in the supreme court to review on certiorari as is now exercised by that court over determinations of the sevefal circuit courts of appeal. Ap- peals from the United States court in Porto Rico should also run to the circuit courts of appeal of the Third circuit instead of to the supreme court. These suggested changes would, l am advised. relieve the supreme court of the consideration of about eight cases annually. and would be in harmony with the theory Of review which led to the establishment of the circuit courts of appeals and which I have stated above
 The American Bar association has had before it the question of reducing the burden of litigation involved in re- versals on review and new trials or rehearings and in frivolous appeals ] in habeas corpus and criminal cases. 1 Their recommendation have been em- bodied in bills now pending in con gress. The recommendation are not | radical. but they will accomplish much | if made into law. and l earnestly rec l ommend the passage of the bills em- l bodying them
 INJUNCTION BILL.
 I wish to renew my urgent recOm | dation made in my last annual mes | sage in favor of the passage of law i which shall regulate the issuing of l injunctiOns in equity without notice I in accordance with the best practice | now in vogue in the courts of the | United States. I regard this of es- pecial importance. first, because it | has been promised. and. second. be- cause it will deprive those who now complain of certain alleged abuses in the improper issuing of injunc- tions without notice of any real ground for further amendment and will take away all semblance of sup port for the extremely radical legis- Iation they propose. which will be most pernicious if adopted. will sap the foundation of judicial power and legalize that cruel instrument, the secondary boycott
 JUDICIAL SALARIES.
 I further recommend to congress the passage of the bill now pending for the increase in the salaries of the |