« AnteriorContinuar »
Resolved, That there be printed, in addition to the number already printed, a sufficient num. ber of copies of the debates, documents and journals, to furnish each of the members with three copies; and also one copy each to the Mayor and the members of the Common Council of the city of Albany, and one copy each to the State Law Libraries at Rochester and Syracuse, the law libraries of the several judicial districts, the Law Institute, the Astor Library, and the New York Historical Society in the city of New York, and the Young Men's Associations of the cities of Albany and Troy.
LUTHER CALDWELL, Secretary.
deny than to limit the right to bring a second ; tribunal is affirmed. Thus it happens, the court appeal. By making any limitation we incur the of appeals, itself, being the judge, that in the vast hazard of unjust and unequal discrimination majority of cases this delay is unnecessary and What sort of limitation shall we have ? Shall we unjust. How vexatious it is, t.be weary, wait. open the court of appeals to the heavy cases of ing, heart-sick suitor best can tell. I submit, it the rich man, and close it to the small case of the is better that justice should be speedy, if somepoor man? Shall we open it to an equity and times wrong, iban always slow, and sometimes close it to a common law action; open it to a cou. right. I am quite sure that justice, rude, igrostitutional and close it to a staiutory action ? rant, but speedy, is better than justice, learned, Ir we do this, how shall we answer for in, technical, and slow. The State prospers in rethat all men are equal before the law i pose, and the repose of the rights of ihe citizen Shall we make commissions? As has been is the repose of the State. In the plan i propose suggested, these commissions will prove re. I deny the right of appeal to the individual markably tenacious of life; and instead of one suitor to the court of last resort. I do this for court of appeals we shall have two; and the very the very purpose of harmony. Gentlemen conremedy that we seek, the very end we wish to tend that we should have a court of appeals like obtain by having one court, that is, harmony of the present system for the purpose of harmony. decision, will be utterly destroyed by having two. I aver that the claim of harmony, as connected Again, sir, I insist that the court of appeals, or with the present court of appeals is a downright aby court like the court of appeals, to which a swindle. There is no such thing as harmony, as party has an unrestricted and unlimited right to a part of the policy of the State. The State bring a second appeal, is undecessary. One trial cannot bring into the court of appeals & single aod one appellate court for one case is enough. case. It is not within the power of the State to If gentlemen will look into the Constitutions of take any disputed question to the court of last other States they will find that most of them rest resort, and there obtain the opinion and decision their judicial systems upon one trial and one of that court. When a question is decided one appellate court. Two appellate courts for one way in the first district, and another way in the case rest upon the principle that one of these second district, the State has no power to settle courts is ioferior, and the other superior, that that question. It rests upon the mere whim of one is bad and the other good, that one is experi- the suitor, it regts perhaps in his poverty, whether mental, the other figal. I would like to know that case shall go to the court of last resort; 80 what right we have to make a poor appellate tri. that when you say you have this system for the bunal? I would like to know what right we purpose of harmony, you say what is not true. have, as framers of the organic law of the State, You have to wait upon the caprice of a suitor; to compel a suitor to take bis case through a poor and in that respect your system is wrong. In court, through a poor appellate tribunal, in order the system I propose, no citizen shall have the to reach a good ope? If we can make a good right to appeal; but in the conflict of decisions, court of appeals we can make a good general where the court in one district has decided in one term, as well. If the general term is good, we way, and the court in another district has decided Deed not go beyond it; if it is bad, we should not in another way, it shall be the duty of the genemake it. If we can bring into the court of lastral term to send that case to the extraordinary resort the best judicial minds of the State we term, and let it there be decided. This can bring them into the general term as well. If ought to be done without additional cost or we will bring them into the general term, we shall expense, and upon the same printed case and. not need a court of appeals. I submit it is a briefs. Such a system would promote harmony palpable absurdity to compel a suitor to take bie of decisions ; the State would be able, through case through a court, the decisions of which he its judiciary, to compel it; it cannot now. To is not bound to respect, and which he may whis-illustrate: it is about tweniy years since an act tle down the wind at pleasure. No man is was passed in regard to the rights of married obliged to respect a decision of the present general women. Under that law the question is daily term. He may abide by it if he chocses, but he arising in different parts of the State whether tenmay abide by any chance as well. Again, I am op. ancy by the curtesy has any existence. In some posed to two appellate tribunals, as a matter of districts it has been decided in one way, and in right to the citizen, for this additional reason: other districts in another. The State itself, that to delay justice is to commit wrong. "It is through its judiciary, has been utterly unable to the interest of the State that litigation should to decide that question in the court of appeals. end," is a maxim as wise as it is old. To delay Why? Because the suitors themselves were un. justice is to deny it; and the State that delays able or unwilling to carry these cases to the justice is but little better than the State that de court of appeals. But under the plan I propose, nies it, for while it is delayed it is denied. How when a conflict of that kind arises, it shall be the leng is justice delayed under the present system of duty of the general term to send the case to two appellate tribunals ? After a case has been the court of last resort, in order that the question decided in general term the failing party has two may be decided, and in order that we may have, in years in which to bring his appeal to ibe court fact as well as in Dame, harmony of decision of appeals. He may then rely upon baving six throughout the State. I know the remarks which Dore years before it shall be decided. Eight I am now submitting will jar somewhat upon the years delay, in all, and then after the decision of prejudices of the older members of the profession the appellate court is reached, in the vast major in this body. I know the tendency of our studier ity of cases, the decision of the inferior appellatel is, to conform us to the precedents of the past