The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-06-07
REFORM.
Challenges for Judges Advocated and
New Referee system.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUN-Sir: !
am not an advocate OF the recall OF
Judges or of judicial decisions. but ]
have submitted to the Constitutional
Convention certain suggestions the
adoption of which | think might have a
tendency to mitigate some of the abuses
which are popularity understood 10
exist. Two of these suggestions;
That each litigant have the right
at least once peremptorily to challenge
the Judge before whom a case Is called.
This would simply be an extension or
the system under which we have long
been permitted to challenge a number
Of Jurors without giving any reason
for the challenge.
That referees md like quasi-judicial
! officers be appointed only from lists
which shall first be made public. and
that before any such officer Is per-
united to act in a particular case the
name of several from the published
list be submitted to the parties. with
the light to each adverse interest to
challenge one or more OF the names
so submitted.
II these stions be adopted there
will be no necessity for any lltigant
to proceed before a Judge whose ability
or fairness Is doubted or before a ref
cree who Is believed to have received
ms ~ ~
ton for past or prospective political
services.
As we have a large number Of Judges
and Justices in our courts OF record
there should be no great inconvenience
In permitting each adverse interest at
least once to challenge "A Judge and
as there are plenty of competent law
yers willing to act as referees, In addi-
ton TO those who are habitually chosen,
no aiH1eplfy Ghnlll pfiga in the nnnl-
cation, under general rules of court, OF
u system throwing open these appoint
ments to all members of the bar
in good standing who care to accept
them. To the objection hat all MEM
bers of the bar might not be deemed
desirable referees the suggestion of the
right of peremptory challenge seems to
me to I've a complete answer.
Suppose the occasion for the appoint
ment of a referee arises In Il case In
which there are but two adverse par
ties. The Judge could readily select
from the published list the naine of,
say, Ave candidates for submission 10
the parties. II by rule OF court each
party be required to challenge two OF
he names so submitted this would
leave the fifth to serve, In cases in
volving more than two adverse interests
seven. nine or more names might be
submitted 10 the parties from the pun
lished list.
In the case OF Judges Il is not eug'
gested hat more than one challenge
Ice allowed to each adverse interest
There should be no difficulty at al
IN permitting the challenge y? judges
in populous counties like New York
and Kings. where several parts OF III,
courts of record are sitting in the same
court house at the same time. All thai
would be necessary upon the clalleng'
ing OF a Judge would be to transfer tn,
case to another part of the court. II
the sparsely settled regions a judge
OF one court OF record might be required
to sit as "A substitute for a challenged
Judge in another court of record. OF
"A Judge from another county or dis
trict might be brought in. \ brie
postponement or the transfer of thu
case to another county might suppl!
the necessary substitution in exceptional
cases. JOSEPH NJ. GAzzAM.
NEW YORK. June 3.