Evening star., 1937-03-22

as il is most important that they
should be
l should add that petitions for Ger
uorau are not appOrtoned among
the justices In all matters before
the court. except in the mere routine
Of administration all the iuSuceS-
unless for some reason a Justice is
disqualified or unable 10 act in
particular CaSe-partlcIpate in the
decision. This applies to the grant
Or refusal Of petitions for certorarI
Furthermore, petitions for certlorari
are granted # four justices think they
should be. vote by a majority Is
not required IN such cases Even If
TWO or three Of the justices are strong
lv Of the opinion that Certiorari should
ne allowed frequently the other JUS
'IceS Will aCuulesce in theI. view, but
the petition IS always granted If four
so vote
Work Held LaboriouS.
The work of passing upon these
application for certiorari Is Iaborious,
but the court Is able to perform It
adequately. Observations have been
made as 70 the vast number Of pages
Of records and briefs that are sub
mltted in the course Of a term. The
total Is imposing but the suggested
conclusion IS haSty and rests on an
lllusOry basis. Records are replete
with testimony and evidence OF facts.
But the questions on certiOrari are
questions Of law. So many cases turn
on the facts, principles Of law not
being in controversy. Il is only when
the facts are so lnterwoven with the
questions Of law which We should re-
view that the evidence must be ex-
amlned and then only to the extent
that it Is necessary to decide the
questions OF law
This at once dlSpoSes Of a vast num-
Der Of factual controversies where the
parties have been fully heard in the
courts below and have no right to
burden the Supreme Court with the
dispute which interests no one but
themselves. This Is also true of con-
troVersIes over contracts and docu-
mentS Of all sorts which involve onlv
parties The applicant for certiorari
is required to state in his petition the
grounds for his application and in a
host Of cases that disclosure itself dis
poses of his request So that the
number Of pages of records and briefs
afford no satisfactory criterion Of the
actual work involved 1t must also
be remembered that justices who have
been dealing with such matters for
years have the aid Of long and varied
experience in separating the chaf
from the wheat.
Sees so Per Cent Without Merit.
l think that it is safe to say that
about 60 per cent of the applications
for CertlOrari are wholly without merit
and ought never to have been made.
There are probably about 20 per cent
or so in addition which have a fair de-
gree of plausibility, but which fail to
survive critical examination. The
remainder, falling short, l believe, of
20 per cent, show substantial grounds
and are granted. 1 think that it is
the view of the members of the court
: that if any error is made in dealing
with these applications it is on the
side of liberality.
g. An increase in the number of
justices of the Supreme Court, apart
from any question of policy, which I
do not discuss. would not promote
the efficiency of the Court. It is be-
lieved that it would impair that eff
cheney so long as the court acts as
unit. There would be more Judges
to hear, more judges to confer, more
| judges to discuss, more judges to be
convinced and to decide. The present
| number of justices is thought to be
large enough so far as the prompt
adequate and efficient conduct Of the
work Of the court is concerned. As
l have said, l do not speak of any
other considerations in view of the
appropriate attitude of the court ir
relation to question of policy.
Calls Division Plan Impracticable.
I understand that it has been sug-
gested that with more justices the
court could hear cases in divisions
1t is believed that such plan would
be lmpracticable. A large proportion
OF the cases we hear are important
and decision by part of the court
would be unsatisfactory.
I may also call attention to the
provision Of Article III, section /, Of
the Constitution that the judicia
! power OF the United States shall b<