The Waterbury Democrat., 1932-12-10
Lets See What They'll Do

If the democrats control the State Senate in the next session of the Legislature it gives the party more than an equal chance of con- trolling not merely party patronage. but of forcing the republican party to acquiesee in the passage of such legislation as has been bngabco to that party. in recent sessions. With the filing of the third biennial report of the Connecticut Judicial Council Thursday im- pefus is given once again to the district court bill. It has the support of the council as it has had in past reports. It should have the report of the democratic party unless control of the Senate has changed the party's viewpoint on this important bit of legis- lation.
 Two years ago the district court bill was recommended to the Legislature as one of the sanest and progressive measures to come be- fore it. Non-partsan organizations joined in endorsing it and asking its passage The dem ccratic party tc man supported 1t in both houses of the General Assembly. Governor Cross publicly spoke in its behalf But the republicans controlling the House and Sem ate defeated it. One of the reasons advanced by party spokesman. not in private conver- safion but right in the legislative chambers was that its passage would deprive the re- publican party of considerable share of its patronage and this 1t could not afford to lose.
 The district court bill simply abolishes the minor courts of the state and instead of five or six in one city or township we would substitute one for definite district. The saving 10 the state would be considerable. That is why the judicial council today rec cmmends the adoption of the district court bilf. It has somewhat widened its terms. sIt now proposes that the courts of the state bs. reduced to three. supreme court of errors superior court. and the new district court. Gone would be our city and police courts. juvenile courts, common pleas courts. and la9 but not least our justice of the peace courts.
 If but to get rid of the last named, we think the bill is worthy of adoption. As for the consolidation of the common pleas court into the district court system, we are not sufficiently versed in legal and court Knowledge to speak with authority. But We would say that unless its present sphere IS definite it certainly would be apt to fall be- fore the axe of economy. Now that the democrats may have hand in distributing judgeships in the minor courts the idea of district court system may not be so appeal ing. It certainly won't be if the party just once places some of its representatives in judicial robes. for it will be forced to con- tend with the same force that the g.o.p. did when it rejected the measure two years ago.
 There will be fine test for the demo- cratic party in this measure and we certainly hope it will be met properly. There IS only one course of action open to the democratic party. so far as we can see. It can't renounce its position of two years ago. It must still favor the removal of all minor court ap- pointments from the field of politics by consolidation of the same into fewer judge ships. That's blow at future democratic patronage just as it was at republican. when rejected in 1931. But the democratic party opposed this mereenary stand then. It must certainly do SO in 1933.' If it does as wholeheartedly. we can't see why the dis trict court bill isn't as good as adopted