us but six judges in all, instead, exhibit gross ignorance of the subject under consideration. Experience has demonstrated that not less than ten judges would have been sufficient for the last ten years, and if so, the next ten years would require fifteen or twenty. But, if we say but twelve, their salaries will amount to $18,000-if we say but eight, their salaries will amount to $12,000; and then out of this sum nothing will have been paid but the judges. The clerks would still have to be paid by the parties, and the enormous taxes on the counties over and above all this, would amount to sixty or seventy thousand dollars per annum more, as has been denmonstrated, saying nothing about the nameless and ruinous expenses to parties litigant, whilst tarrying at the court house with their throngs of witnesses, day after day, and week after week, in busy seasons of the year, not knowing what moment their suits may he called. But on the other hand we may increase considerably the fees of the county judges in each cause, then if we give them entire original law jurisdiction in civil cases, together with the foreclosure of most of the mortgages, the number of the causes in the county courts would not amount to two thousand per annum, and the aggregate costs for judges, clerks and jurys' fees would amount to less than $12,000 a year, all of which would be paid by the litigant parties, without one cents expense to the state or county treasuries. And if we clothe the county court with some amount of criminal jurisdiction, great economy and expedition can be secured in this department of jurisprudence also. If we retain the county courts do we need any increase of justices on the supreme court bench? We think not; for excepting the foreclosure of mortgages, there are not to exceed one or two hundred chancery causes per annum. One hundred causes may be carried up from the county courts on certiorari, and if out of the three hundred annual indictments found in the state, the justices of the supreme court preside at the trial of fifty or one hundred of them, all this would leave less than a hundred causes a piece for our four justices to hear at the circuits. But why abolish our county courts we would ask? Do not of ficial returns prove that the causes have been disposed of on an average in about one month's time, instead of a dela y of years, and at no expense to the tax payers, and with very little more to the parties than in the justices courts? Of the causes thus disposed of, ninety-three per cent have been satisfactory and seven per cent only carried up-not a greater proportion than were taken up from the circuit courts. When these suits, thus taken up, come to be reviewed by one of the justices of the supreme court, the judgment of the court below will be confirmed in full one half the cases, and the other half righted with great facility, and in either instance, but little expense is incurred, for neither parties witnesses, or juries are present, but only the parties' council. If, however, ten or even twenty per cent of the causes brought into the county courts were wrongfully decided and never could be got right again, they would not be as many as become worthless in the circuit court of every state in the Union, after great expense has been incurred in consequence of the death of parties, or loss of testimony by death, removal or otherwise, whilst waiting for the long, periodical revolutions of that dilatory court. Who demands the abolishment of the county court, and the restoration of the old system? Not the people, certainly, for about as many of them would vote for that, as to abolish the justices' courts. Not all the members of the legal profession either, for many of those who are willing to make pecuniary sacrifices to the public good, and who are capable of feeling a respectful deference for the prevailing sentiment of the people, manifesta laudible willingness to retain, and perfect the county court system, and assist in enlarging the sphere of its usefulness. But there are those who zealously contend for a repeal of the county court; and so there were those who resisted, with desperation, the enlargement of the jurisdiction of justices of the peace to more than 25 dollars; and so there always have been those ready to defeat, if possible, every attempt to abolish any of the intricacies and mummeries of judicial proceedings, and every attempt to facilitate and economise the attainment of justice by legal process, and so there always will be whilst human nature remains as it is. So long as a suit can be kept in court, so long must the clients support them there, and continue to pay for motions, notices, demurrers, and all that; and so long as clients have means of paying, so long will a suit be kept there if possible: There are those who prefer a dilatory court, and who live by entangling their causes in the meshes and webs of the law, that they may continue the longer, to prey upon their clients like a spider upon its victim. Those who contend for this repeal of the court, and the restoration of the old regime do not deign to give reasons either orally or through the newspaper presses under their control. In their correspondence with their presses, they denounce with the vilest epithets those they cannot control, and treat with peurile and fulsome flattery those whom they seek to bend to their purposes. They never deign to regard the mass of men as rational beings, capable of combining facts and analyzing arguments, but rather as children, susceptible of being terrified by noisy declamation. All of which is respectfully submitted. SAMUEL DENTON, Chairman. A. H. REDFIELD, J. MCCABE. |