New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-06-09
CHALLENGE JUDGES
Litigants Then Could Not QussrH
Fairness or Integrity.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.

To the Editor OF The Irioune
Sir: There has been much dscgssr
late upon the question Of judiciary S.r-
The writer is not an advocate Of til, "a
Of Judges or of judicial decisions, bu, hx
submitted TO the Constitutional Con'rs-
certain suggestions the adoption Of vhla :
feels might have a tendency TO mltigru 81,
Of the abuses which are popularly untsn'r
70 exist. Two OF those sgygestion ~ |
% That each litieant be given the riti
least once peremptorily 10 challenge ID, 80
before whom case is called lThI, ~.
simply be an extension of the system -
which we have long been permitted to q |
lcnge a number Of jurors without giving
reason for the challenger. ~ That 's,sn.
and like qussi-judicial officers Be 'prc;,I
only from lists which shall first Be ni'I
public; and that before any such o-fr
permitted to act in particular case Il
names Of several from the published hn
submitted to the parties, with the nsn
each adverse interest 20 challenge Of" "s'J
OF the names so submitted. II
II these suggestions be adopted there ~
no necessity for any litigant TO proceed vi
a Judge whose ability or fairness IS a''s
or before a referee who is believed
received his appointment solely asa esn1
alton for past or prospective politleA y
vices.
As we have a large number OF JUG" u
justices in our courts Of record 'nefe Wv
be no great inconvenience in permi''ias
adverse interest at least once to enahsas
Judge; and as there are plenty OF eonr'
LAWYERS willing to act as referees N aa's
TO those Who are habitually chosen, ID ii
Guilty should arise in the applieat'os' -
general rules of court, Of system m"'
open these appointments TO all men's'' ]
the bar in good standing who care ~
them. To the objection that all meIa'
the bar might not be deemed des'is0N !.
erees the suggestion Of the right OF -
tory challenge seems 10 the wri's'
complete answer. -
Suppose the occasion for the sppolS'.
of a referee arises in a case In whien
are but two adverse parties. me Iaas :,
readily select from the puoilshea ~
names of. say, FIVE candidates Tor su's
to the parties. II by rule Of court esen =
be required to challenge two Of 'ne a.. 80.
submitted this would leave the MN 70
In cases involving more than two aa's.s ,
terests. seven. nine or more names 49,.
submitted to the parties from the P1'
list .~,,ss
In the case of judges it is not sass ,
ina. more than one challenge De a,'I.
Zach adverse interest. There should
diaieulty at all in permitting the en'
of Judges in populous counties IKE g. 80
and Kings. where several parts OF Wv ...,
of record are sitting in the same eoa''s. y,
at the same time. All that "ou,u -
sary upon the challenging OF lS's ~
be TO transfer the case to another P''' -
court. In the sparsely settled regions
az on. court OF record might be reaun.
sit as n substitute for challenges &
another court Of record; or a Judge -
other county or district might DC O.sf =
A brief postponement or the tranhs, q
case 10 another county migh, 'Sfr.
necessary substitution in exceptions, I, 7.
Il is not suggested that the ae'a'. ..s,r,
proposed system be embodied ~ -. ,s.r
tional amendment, but simply tna' ~ ,,,r,i,
be required to make general rule .;.,. n
out the principles OF these sagse'. .,....,
courts probably have the power ~ !rn.,l y
sdop, n system such as is above oa. W., A
!, NAV he doubted whether .hsy v"
without a specific mandate from N. ,yrTiN
WV JOSEPH N. GAIS~
N.w York Iune g 1915.