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, the 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 some-
poor man? Shall we open it to an equity and times wrong, than always slow, and sometimes
close it to a common law action; open it to a cou- right. I am quite sure that justice, rude, igno-
stitutional and close it to a statutory action? rant, but speedy, is better than justice, learned,
If we do this, how shall we answer for it, technical, and slow. The State prospers in re-
that all men are equal before the law? pose, and the repose of the rights of the 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 con-
remedy 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
'any 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 unnecessary. One trial caunot bring into the court of appeals a single
and 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 inferior, 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 rests perhaps in his poverty, whether
mental, the other final. I would like to know that case shall go to the court of last resort; so
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 his 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 one? 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
need not go beyond it; if it is bad, we should not in another way, it shall be the duty of the gene-
make it. If we can bring into the court of last ral 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 his 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.
is not bound to respect, and which he may whis-illustrate: it is about twenty 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 ten-
may 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
right to the citizen, for this additional reason:
that to delay justice is to commit wrong. "It is
to the interest of the State that litigation should
end," is a maxim as wise as it is old. To delay
justice is to deny it; and the State that delays
justice is but little better than the State that de-
nies it, for while it is delayed it is denied. How
long is justice delayed under the present system of
two appellate tribunals? After a case has been
decided in general term the failing party has two
years in which to bring his appeal to the court
of appeals. He may then rely upon having six
more years before it shall be decided. Eight
years delay, in all, and then after the decision of
the appellate court is reached, in the vast major
ity of cases, the decision of the inferior appellate
districts it has been decided in one way, and in other districts in another. The State itself, through its judiciary, has been utterly unable to decide that question in the court of appeals. Why? Because the suitors themselves were unable or unwilling to carry these cases to the court of appeals. But under the plan I propose, when a conflict of that kind arises, it shall be the duty of the general term to send the case to the court of last resort, in order that the question may be decided, and in order that we may have, in fact as well as in name, harmony of decision throughout the State. I know the remarks which I am now submitting will jar somewhat upon the prejudices of the older members of the profession in this body. I know the tendency of our studies is, to conform us to the precedents of the past
----------་ཤན་་་་་་་པའས་བ་-་ས་༧༧ལ་