New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-08-22
THE PROPOSED COURT SYSTEM
Needlessly Expensive and Likely to
Perpetuate Evils of Present One

TO the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: It is to be presumed that the pro-
posed court system is result satisfactory %
the judiciary committee Of the Constitutional
Convention. Perhaps, instead Of being salts
factory it was adopted as a compromise for
purpose of reporting only. Il ought to be
fully discussed. When it is discussed It viii
rot be willingly adopted by the convention.
1t appears to be an emergency measure TO
get rid of the cOngested calendars and 70
reach speedier trials. Is this its only merit!
In operation it will prove an onerous hnsn-
cial burden. It adds many new judges and
&C mmissioners. Instead of simplifying the
old or adopting a new and more efficient sys,
TEN it utilities the present system. Il does
not even seek to lessen the expense OF TINS
system. Why should we worship the present
system? Why do we need so many appellate
courts? We now have three, when one is all
sufficient and could be made more efficient
and far less expensive Is this proposed sys-
TEN a mere makeshift TO meet an emergency
1t does not lessen the cost Of litigation. u
is not democratic II does not favor the poor
man, but does those who can pay for appeals
This is not dealing out uniform justice
am now referring especially 10 the appear
system. Appeals are costly and they need not
be. Suppose there were one appellate court
having one judge as some countries hayeb
he to be assisted by a corps Of able lawyers
readers, whose duty it was TO read over every
decision of the subordinate court as u
is rendered, and if there were good and sum
cfent cause therefor that decision to be reet'-
fed and any abuse found be remedied. mus
every case would be reviewed by an appellate
court without expense. This is simple ara
just appellate system. Why should not every
decision be reviewed by an appellate court
Every abuse in law committed by thal
judge would be thus rendered on appeal and
in no other way should it be. No Judge or
court of equal jurisdiction should have power
to revise the decision or action OF another
judge of the same court. We do not need
state court of appeals consisting OF seven
teen or twenty judges and appellate divisions
of over sixty judges. Why should we nave
four trial courts when one is all suihceh,
one trial court combining the supreme, inc
county, the surrogate's courts and courts o.
sessions to try all civil and criminal eases
| ne Judges SnOull De uco lBNdltA as INV
trials to as many parts as are necessary
Every part should be open for business every
day of the year except Sundays and holidays
Such law would prevent congestcl calendars
in any court. The judiciary committee lg'
nored this crying abuse CLOSED courts four
months in year.; will the convention ignore
it? Why make new court Of permanent
condemnation COMMISSIONER unnecessary
expense? Why should not a Supreme Court
Judge be designated to this work? The peo-
PIE should not be taxed to carry out TINS plan
This report not only continues but increases
the abuse of designating trial judges TO tne
Court Of Appeals and to the Appellate DiVl-
sions. The Supreme Court judges we're elect,
ed as trial judges and should not be relieved
Of that duty.
This court question, court system and prse-
tice is big question. and pity 1t is that II
cannot have a fair field for consideration
unfettered by many other big issues. Cannot
the convention provide for voting on eaen
proposition separately? Every question
should be voted on independently on Us merits
Brooklyn, Aug. II, 1915. LAWYER