The Waterbury Democrat., 1937-02-05
CONTINUED from Page y


tain the effective functioning Of
the fedora. judiciary.
The judiciary has often found
itself handicapped by insufficient
personnel with which to meet q
growing and more complex bus
mess.
It Is true that the physical IA
cilities Of conducting the business
Of the courts have been greatly
improved in recent years, through
the erection Of suitable quarters,
the provision Of adequate libraries
and the addition of subordinate
court officers. But In many ways
these are merely the trappings
Of judicial ONCE.
Play Minor Part
They rlay q minor part In the
process Of justice.
Since the earliest days of the
republic, the problem Of the per-
sonnet Of the courts has needed
the attention Of the congress. For
example, from the beginning, over
repeated protests to President
Washington, the justices Of the
supreme court were required to
ride circuits" and, as circuit
justices, tl hold trials throughout
the length and breadth Of the
land-a practice which endured
over a century.
In almost every decade since
1889 changes have been made by
the congress whereby the num-
bers Of judges and the duties of
judges In federal courts have
been altered In one way or an
other. The supreme court was es-
tablished with six members in
1889; 1t was reduced to five in
1901: 1t was increased to seven In
1907; 1t was increased to nine in
1887; 1t was increased to ten in
1858; 1t was reduced to seven In
1856; 1t was increased to nine In
1869.
New Need Today
The simple fact is that today
a new need for legislative action
arises because Of the personnel of
the federal judiciary is insufd-
Client to meet the business before
them. A growing body Of our citi-
zens complain Of the complexities,
the delays, and the expense Of lit
igation IN United States courts.
A letter from the attorney gen.
eral, which submit herewith,
juStifies by reasoning and Stats
tics the common impression Gre
ated by our over-crowded federal
dockets-and 1t proves the need
for additional judges.
Delay In any court results In in
justice.
1t makes law suits a luxury
available only to the few who can
afford them or who have property
interests 10 protect which are suf-
fciently large to repay the cost.
Poorer litigants are compelled
TO abandon valuable rights or to
accept inadequate or unjust set
Elements because of sheer inabil-
ity to finance or TO await the
end of long litigation. Only by
speeding up the processes of the
law and thereby reducing their
cost, can we eradicate the growing
impression that courts are chiefly
haven for the well-to-do.
Delays in the determination of
appeals have the same effect.
Moreover, If trials of original &C
tons arc reduced the volume of
work imposed on the circuit
courts Of appeals will further in
crease.
tn" attainment of speedier JUS
tice - the courts below will en-
large the task of the supreme
court itself. And still more work
would be added by the recom-
mendation which I make later In
this message for the quicker de-
termination OF constitutional ques-
tons by the highest court.
Under Heavy Burden
Even the present time the su-
preme court Is laboring under q
heavy burden. It's difficulties in
this respect were superficially
lightened some years ago by au-
thorizing the court, in its discre-
ton, to refuse to hear appeals In
many classes of cases.
This discretion was so freely ex-
crcised that in the last fiscal year.
although 867 petitions for review
we're presented to the supreme
court, 1t declined to hear TIT
cases. If petitions In behalf Of
the government are excluded, 1t
appears that the court permitted
private litigants to prosecute APP