Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1914-09-21
SUPREME COURT
DOCKET SUBJECT
OF DISCUSSION

repeatedly stated around the Capitol
that the Supreme Court Of Texas j. four
years behind H. docket. and ihe Dallas
News ~ Thursday III ils report Of the
address Of Chief Justice r.. ~. Brown to
Dallas lawyers on "Wednesday quotes him
as saving. Il believe that the court j.
fully five wears behind with its work"
Il assume that the reporter must have
failed 10 correctly understand just what
Judge Brown meant and said. or that H.
treated too seriously some pi~sin. r.-
mark upon the s%ilIe-t.
However that may H.. I feel that the
court and the public are entitled az this
time 20 a statement showing the amount
of business now actually pending in that
court and the amount Of business trans
acted BY il during is last term. ia order
that all concerned may correctly dcluce
their own conclusions ia the premises
and have before them accurate data from
which "a determine. If they 80 desire.
what relief should be- extended To that
cohrt.
n careful study Of the present con
dition of the Supreme Court dockc;S con
fA''" ~ tuiA tUt VII - NfDNt lMt
years. AMI certainly not more than two
and One half wears. behind with itS work.
by that ] mean that. III my opinion. II
no other cas-. were filed Ia that coart
meanwhile. we could by dilipcnt work
clear its docket within that time. and
possibly in considerable less time. This
estimate is based up0n and j. amply sup
ported by the record Of work done dur
ing our last term. which began October
q. 1913, aud ended June -. 1911. Within
that time we disposed ~ ln2 applira-
lions for writs Of error. leaving 3aS
which were carried over until next
term. Since adjournment aud M IL =
few DAYS ago 10 additional applications
Tor writS Of error had been filed. making
the number Of such applications nov
pending about -. or only - more than
were disposed II durin. last term. Dur.
ing the last term il addition "a our work
upon the application dockrt We decided
10 submitted eases and dismissed I3 nj
ditional eases from the docket. dcnie.l ~
applications for leave 10 Tie petitions
for mandamuS and made 9G additional
NIFH HifffNHNs flf.
During our hast term We cleared our
d"cketS ~ 10 filed eases "a the rate ~
more than 20 per month.
We now nave upon our anplication
docket the above mentioned rs eases and
upon our submission docket - eases
which have been submitted and 1916 eases
which have not been submitted. making
- total of 35l submitted and mn~nbmittca
eases. and a grand total of GS..
IF We We're 10 dispose 81 an these
eases IA the previous rate " ~ Ter
month. and no other ease should he filed
all Of our dockcts would be- clear in II
working months. which. under the stat
ute. would be- by March |. 1916
but disposition Of submitted causes
consumes considerably more time ihan
does the disposition ~ The same number
Of eases upon The application docket:
hence this estimate should include aIai-
tional time because of the large number
of canScS upon our submission docket
-Four months additional time would carry
uS To the end of the Second succeeding
fern. or TO July /. 1916. completing the
two Years period.
III there hc thrown III for good meas
nrr an additional one half term. the e.
tlinatcd period for clearing our ,lockrt~
would thus hc made IL embrace two an,
one halt years. extending a.. SAY. the mid
die of January. 1917.
Now. IL il certainly bad enough hat
The supreme Court. through no fault of
u> own. Is even two or two and one half
years behind with it, work: but can
not find facts % support the conclusion
ihatthc condition Of it, dockct~ l. a.,
worse than that.
I'll - not my purpose ID now discuss
the merits or dement's Of any proposition
or suggestion which has been made for
the relief of the supreme Court. or ~
ans legislation defining it, jurisdiction.
but | consider ii proper "a say here that
= considerable number of the applications
for nritS ~ error which are nov pend
ing have arisen under the sct ~ 1919 tr
fiming the Jurisdiction If the Supreme
Court. and particularly under Subdivi
sioa q of Il. :. Article l5.l. ~ set out
IN that Act which applies 20 eases in
which the Court Of civil Appeals has
enormously declared the substantive law
Of The ra>c.' However. Jew LAWYERS In
Texas are surprised Al this result. III
fact il was frrclv and openly predicted IN
the meeting ~ the state Bar A~Sociation
ut Galveston. aud al>o az Austin and
elsewhere. before that Act was passed
that itS inevitable result would b. "a
broaden the jurisdiction Of the supreme