El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1917-11-13

review DE the court IN pane aApulu
be had OF the decision Of any sub
division in certain cases. The mini
mum Of those cases is embraced IN
article 1921 r :, as amended by acts
I s5th legislature, p 40 Those cases
are
the courts of civil appeals may dis
] agree upon any question Of law ma
/ terial TO the decision.
:. Those in which one OF the
courts of civil appeals holds differ
emily from a prior decision Of its own
or OF another court Of civil appeals.
or OF the supreme court upon any
such question Of law.
%. Those involving the construction
or the validity OF statutes
4 Those involving the revenue
laws of the state.
= Those in which the railroad
comm ission is a party.
6. In any other case I'm which 10 Us
made 10 appear that am error OF law
has been committed by the court of
civil appeals Of such Importance 70
the Jurisprudence Of the state, as in
the opinion Of the supreme court re-
Cuires correction. but excluding
those cases in which the Jurisdiction
of the court Of civil appeals is made
final by statute
The legislature would never refuse
and should not refuse the right 20
review by the court in banc Of cases
OF the character indicated above
The greater part Of the time Of the
entire court would be consumed in
the disposition Of those cases Thirty
men would have 10 familiarize them
selves with the record. agree upon the
disposition Of the case and then agree
upon the opinion to be delivered i
. can be imagined how long II VIII
take TO do this and the difficulty
which Will be experienced in getting
90 lawyers to agree II is frequently
difficult for three TO agree and with
80 IL would be almost an impossi-
bility.
Would Overburden Court.
tt is an unacceptable conclusion that
upon such court would devolye the
transaction Of all the business now
transacted by nine courts OF riNI
appeals, the court Of criminal ap-
peals and the suprem ecourt. on
account Of its size, IL could
not transact its business either prop
erly, efficiently or expediuously-
believe no lawyer VIII dissent from
that conclusion who has had any eN-
perieuce as a member OF an appellate
court The result would be tnat the
time OF the supreme court, like the
present court. would be consumed IN
considering and passing upon appu-
cations for review by the court in
bauc. All appeals would be subject
to iutolerable delay. whereas now
they are promptly disposed OF by the
courts of civil appeals and the delay
occurs only upon proceedings in the
supreme court in n limited number OF
cases. In other words. the concen-
tratinE Of all appellate jurisdiction in
one court means a delay in all appeals
amounting TO no less than denial
OF Justice. In no way can Il De
avoided except by SO limiting the
the number of appeals TO q point
where a court Of limited member
ship can promptly and properly dis
pose Of same. This would necfsSl-
tate such limitation upon the right
Of appeal that the mum Der OF appeals
would be reduced 10 at least ten per-
cent Of the present number 30 one
would favor so limiting the right
Courts Now Accessible
Another grave objection TO the pro-
posed plan arises out OF the EeOErapn-
zeal limits Of our state \ single ap-
peIlate court and the divisions thereof
must sit at Austin in order TO dispose
of business coming before il in banc
This means that all appeals 30 10
Austin which is remote from and not
easily accessible to so percent Of the
state The expense and tiure con-
sumed in going to Austin to argue
case would preclude doing so IN most
appeals. thereby denying valuable
right. Under the present system. the .
courts of civil appeals are easily ac-
cessible at slight expense Their
Jurisdiction is final in most cases and
the appeals are disposed of quickly
and ineNpenslvely- urtnerInore' Jne
people prefer that their cases be dis
posed Of by local tribunals before
Judges known TO and chosen by the f
people Of that locality rather than Z
by distant tribunals and before Judges
whom they do not know and in whose .
selection they have had but little I.
voice
The criticism most frequently di- Z
rected against the courts Of civil ap-
peals is that the standard Of ability
Of the judges thereof is not what II
ought TO be and their judgments and
opinions accordingly below what they
should be. This. II true. Is not the /
fault OF the system but Of the selec- F.
tiOn Of the judges, and the remedy in F.
large measure, though not wholly, lies /
in the suggestion relative 10 salary. /
There is not a supreme judicial dis I
triCt IN this state which does not pos
sess n bar from which three men can 4
be selected who would wOrthily serve .
and with as much ability and distiuc- I
tiOn as the appellate court Of any I
state.
Would lIire Court in Politics.
But, however this may be, We would 4
have no assurance that one supreme /
court with n large membership would I
attain a higher standard than that /
of the present courts OF civil appeals. I
{ pom the contrary, IN my opinion. 10 /
would NOT IL would be necessary D
every two years TO elect ten judges. /
There would be more candidates than .
there are for congressman at large Z
andAthe judges would be elected upon
their campaign abilities rather than
merit and fitness for the position. It /
would mire the supreme court In the
slough Of politics, a condition from
which, happily, 1t has been largely I
free
TO- That the summer vacation Of I
all appellate courts be reduced 10 two
months.