Evening star., 1955-10-04
More or Fewer Judges?

66CGGk4t ~ tASAS8 &h AaAS eSeNsA
have cited the delays, ranging
up to four or i've years, In
some districts In bringing q
case TO trial. The cry Is more
judges!" They'll be provided.
too.
Then in a couple Of years.
the cry win 60 up again.
Yet under our present Fed
eral judicial set up. getting
to trial is only part Of "the
laws delay" that also was be-
ing complained about in
Shakespeare's day. Why
doesn't The Star look into the
delays after the trial. while
appeals judges toss cases
around and around. then back
to those 80 hard : pressed
District courts.
The remedy for what ails
the Federal judiciary. in my
opinion. is fewer judges, not
more.
There is a real story to be
done by newspapers on why
Federal justice moves so slow
ly. The causes win include
power-seeking judges who
have busted themselves with
things none of their concern
so that 1t is q rare State GRIM
inal case which does not get
into Federal court again and
again. The scandal Of Cali
fornia's Chessman case has
been repeated in nearly every
State Of the Union. Your re-
porters WIN ind several such
cases written up In various
issues Of the Congressional
Record. They also viii note
that the House Judiciary Com
mittee Just before the last
session ended reported q bill
which would curb this habeas
corpus scandal q bit--but only
q bit.
Then, going beyond the Dis
trict courts. you will ind
countless cases in which cir
cult courts Of appeals upset
District court verdicts on tech
nicalities as flimsy as any
used by the most venal court
In the Chicago of Capone's
day. How about that recent
treason verdict. reversed be-
cause the man was tried in
one district instead Of an
other (although his treason
was against the whole United
States? Then having or
dered o new trial the judges
threw that out because too
long q time had elapsed since
the crime.
Then there was the Judith
Coplan case.
And many. many more, most
Of them so ridiculous that only
rarely do the three judges Of
an appeal panel hand down
a unanimous opinion. Isn't
that laughable? No three
learned judges can agree on
the law or the facts.
Then you can dig into the
biggest court-clogger of all
the Supreme Court. How about
q recapitulation Of how often
these nine men (few Of them
with any real previous legal
training) have changed q
previous Supreme Court deci-
cion, although the law on
which earlier and later deci-
sions was based hadn't been
changed an iota In the mean
time.
That is Interpretation Of law?
Even complacent Congress
finds 1t necessary to step In
from time to time, as 1t did
in the Tidelands oil cases tan
opinion only exceeded In lack
of law and logic by the "psy-
chology book" reasoning Of the
school segregation cases.. As
it did In the insurance cases,
and others.
II the Supreme Court would
stick by its own decisions.
pending q change in law. that
in itself would reduce the court
load appreciably, for every
Tom, Dick and Harry wouldn't
be suing in the face Of q
precedent against him In hopes
OF q new precedent.
The plain fact is, the ju-
dietary Is in the state 1t finds
itself because Of two things:
Their own power seeking which
has led them to take cases,
make findings, reverse lower
Federal and State courts SIM
ply to bolster themselves.
Congress and the States let
ting them get away with it,
Secondly, taking advantage of
that judicial usurpation Of
power, people have sought 10
use the Federal judiciary for
their own prrposes--wheth
It's to abolish segregation or To
save the necls Of Chessmans--
and the Federal judges have
accommodated them.