The Grenada sentinel. [volume] (Grenada, Miss.) 1868-1955, 1914-10-23
VOTERS CALLED UPON TO MAKE THREE MORE OFFICES

VOTERS CALLED UPON TO MAKE THREE MORE OFFICES
Among the several constitutional amendments which are to be
submitted to the electorate of Mississippi at the election, November
!. is one to provide for three more judges of the State Supreme
court. Certain lawyers ART interesting themselves very much in the
proposition, some of them, we believe, for the reason that they hope
to jump into IN of the new. fat places sought to be created. The
argument is put forth that the work of the Supreme Court is very
much congested and that ltigarts ART compelled to wait too long
for the final determination of cases appealed to the Supreme Court;
it is also urged that three judges, which is now the number OF the
bench, can not properly handle the great number of cases which are
appealed from the lower courts to that tribunal, both OF which are
correct. But the question arises: Will it not take six Judges just
TWICE AS LONG to read a record and hunt up authorities bearing on
any particular case as it takes three judgesi There can be but one
answer. and that is, yes" this being true, then, where does the mat
ter of expediting business come mf The advocates of the amend
ment will answer and say that the six judges Will sit IN two DIVISIONS
each with coordinate authority. The amendment offered which pro
vides for the sitting in two divisions reads as follows:
The Supreme Court shall have power, under such rules and
regulations as it may adopt, to sit in two divisions of three judges
each. any two of whom when convened shall form a quorum each
may be assigned to it by the court. In event the judges compos
ing any division shall differ as to the Judgment to be rendered in
any cause, or in event any Judge OF either division. within a time
and in a manner to be fixed by the rules to be adopted by the
of the cour, is in conflict with any prior decision of the court or
any division thereof, the cause shall then be considered and ad-
judged by the full court Of a quorum thereof"
1t is not unreasonable to expect that a vast majority of the cases
handled by either of the two divisions of three judges each will
have to be passed upon by the full court. Every man has a certain
pride in sustaining his own opinions and where there is a disagree
ment among the "three judges" of one division, the dissenting JUS
fice will most probably certify" his disagreement to the full bench
where the whole matter will again have to be gone over, and in place
of making time, time will be lost.
The remedy offered by these lawyers for getting quicker results
in the Supreme Court is somewhat analogous to the doctors treat
ment OF a patient where he was uncertain in his diagnosis. He threw
his patient into fits and then undertook to cure the fits with the re-
suit that the undertaken services were soon in demand. They are
beginning at the wrong end of the line to benefit the public and to
meet the ends of justice. In place of beginning at the top OF the Ju-
dietary system o. the state, we should begin at the bottom-in the
inferior courts. Trivial cases should not be allowed an appeal to the
Supreme Court. Civil cases where the amount involved does not
exceed $3.50 should be barred from appeal. This in the end would
benefit the ltigant. Most frequently petty lawsuits are prolonged
through spite or bullheadedness and the man who wins is a loser.
A poor compromise is better than a good lawsuit. Misdemeanors.
except where the circumstances are unusual or extraordinary, should
be denied an appeal to the Supreme Court. The State can not ap-
peal in any criminal case and it does appear that where a man has
his case passed up to the trial court by eighteen grand jurors and
then his cause heard by twelve petit jurors in the county where he
resides. that every opportunity has been given him to get justice and
that it is not right to further clog the wheels of the courts with his
misdoings or pleadings. OF course this might occasionally work a
hardship and an injustice, but it is indeed hard to adhere to any line
of public policy which at times does not bear heavily upon some
one; but we must not forget that the theory of our government is
"the greatest good to the greatest number" We recognize the fact
that the limitation of appeals would tend to minimize litigation. the
very thing the lawyer does not want, but W e should not legslate for
lawyers or for any other class but that should be done which is best
for all the people. Our courts cost too much and the lawyers are
largely to blame for it. Our court procedure needs radical revision.
Our court machinery is too complex; it was made by lawyers and
they are the benehciarles of its completely, while the public pays
the freight" Now we do not mean this as any indictment of law
~yers-they are just men like all the balance of us and it is but in
keeping with the instincts OF human nature tor them to look well
after their profession.
We repeat that this proposed amendment seeks to begin at the
wrong end to give quicker and better results in litigation. If civ:
lawsuits above referred and misdemeanor cases, except where the
facts and circumstances are unusual or extraordinary, a matter which
can be trusted to the discretion of the presiding judge, are denied an
appeal to the Supreme Court, then we dare say that the cases carried
up to that tribunal would be decreased fully fifty per cent thereby
giving the court as at present constituted abundant time to handle
all other appealed cases.
The increase of the court as proposed would add in salaries and
stenographers fees and other items fully 81 5,oooe 90 to what is now
collected from the taxpayers of the state and in our judgement
should be defeated.