St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1914-07-08
PRESS COMMENT
The Necessity of Simpler and Cheap
er Court Procedure

The Necessity of Simpler and Cheap
er Court Procedure
We are in thorough accord with
the views expressed by the Rutland
Herald in an editorial reproduced on
TINS page concerning the obligation
that rests upon the bench and bar to
simplify and cheaper court proceed
ure. The need of it is universally
admitted. Lawyers quite readily
concede that sweeping reforms
should be inaugurated. Yet when it
comes to action they hang back Of
all things human, the forms of law
are the most conservative. Medi-
cine, journalism, even theology,
move on to adapt themselves in
form if not in substance to the NOV
ing world. But the practice of law
is well nigh immutable. What
Blackstone or Kent or Chitty laid
down for their times is the rule to-
day, almost without variation. The
common law of England-admirab
for its day-still prevails except as
special enactments undertake to
supercede it (not always success
fully, as interpreted). With the pas
sing of time has come a conglomera-
ton of rules, presidents and usages
that clog like barnacles. Instead of
answering the modern demand for
simplicity, the law in its admins
tration is more complex than ever.
Judges and practitioners from Will
liam H. Taft down lament it, but
they show no inclination to apply
remedies. They are held back, it
would seem, by sort of blind rev.
erence for the thing that serves as
the basis of their profession. 1t may
be that some of them feel that simp-
Ter justice would mean less oppor-
tunities for them. But most of them
are deferred by a spiritual attitude
toward what they have been taught
to regard as the ark of the covenant
too sacred to be molested. The
pity of it is that while reform waits
the very men best fitted to do it wise
ly and well are letting the opportun-
ity slip. If the laity must attempt
it we may expect to see it bungled
when a better way is open.-Herald
and News.
Let Lawyers Lead in Court Reform
So far the lawyers, best fitted by
training, association and professional
equipment to deal intelligently with
the subject, have had little or moth
ing to say about reform and simpli-
apathy and inaction?
The present topheavy, costly and
inefficient system of courts is an adj
mitted failure. The added leisure
of the supreme court seems to have
had the unhappy result of lending
itself to a finer spinning of techni-
calities, with a consequent loss of
the human principle of justice as
against meR legal mechanics.
The superior court has improved
the situation very slightly, even
with the steadily growing net work
of municipal courts which we're de-
signed to relieve the county judiciary
of the more trivial cases. Justice
costs no less. There is no short cut
for litigation. In fact, it is becom-
ing a matter of notorious knowledge
and tacit acceptance that a man
might better suffer a considerable
loss and injustice, rather than invoke
the expensive adjudication of the
courts.
This situation approaches the
scandalous. 1t is no impeachment
of the character of the judges to say
that the endless round of reversal,
retrial and frequent abandonment of
causes is demoralizing and tends to
CI0dIS d WhO1SSd10 ulS1 SSpOSC VI
courts and law.
Some simplification of courts will
certainly be attempted by the next
legislature and it should not be left
to the unskilled impulses of men un-
familiar with the subject and una
ware of the widespread effect OF such
legislation. Why does the state bar
not assume it's position of natural
leadership in this movement?
In the same connection, the cum
brous and antiquated system of
pleading and court procedure gene
rally should be scrutinized with a
view to simplification and making
more in accord with modern prac-
tice Such reforms should come
within, not without, the bar, and the
biggest, strongest jurists in the state
might very properly give their Gme
and attention to these problems.
The abolition of the superior
court as a separate body and the ad-
ding of not more than three circuit
members to the present supreme
court is being seriously advocated in
connection with a proposal TO IN
crease the Jurisdiction of the munich
pal courts with no review save on
questions of law.
Is this a practical and desirable
reform?
II seems so to the Herald, but the
bench and bar seem likely to let the