Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/317

 298

THE GREEN BAG

amount of detail which has little bearing upon the main issue and does not check in competent inquiry unless asked to do so by opposing counsel. Counsel fear to preju dice their case by too frequent objections and the trial runs off into unnecessary by paths. I believe that the rule prohibiting the court from charging upon facts and commenting upon evidence should be re pealed. It is a common saying among busi ness men that they would prefer the deci sion of a single judge to that of twelve men, and yet under our system the judge is pre vented from even rendering proper assist ance to the jury. The opposite practice exists in England. The presiding judge takes a strong and vig orous hold of the case from the first by in quiries of counsel and of witnesses, brings sharply to the attention of the jury the main issues, and counsel hesitate to ask in competent questions because they may im mediately be checked by the court. Our trials are good natured, patient, and painstaking, but sometimes diffuse. As the evils of the over-crowded lists become more apparent to the community it will undoubt edly result in greater power being given to the judges, and in their exercising a more direct influence on the course and result of trials. Another cause for the congestion in our courts is the smallness of the fee bills taxed at the close of litigation, and from the fact

that no bond is required from the plaintiff for costs when his action is begun. Whether anything should or can be done in this re gard it is difficult to determine. It would be contended that many poor people would be unable to give security for costs and be prevented from prosecuting righteous causes. This is perhaps a sufficient answer to any suggestion of change. It may, however, be doubted whether many, if any meritorious causes would fail of prosecution because of inability to give security. Ordinarily speak ing, a plaintiff with a meritorious cause which had been carefully analyzed by com petent counsel would find it possible among his acquaintances to give security. The result certainly would be to prevent the exploiting of all sorts and kinds of claims with very little consideration of the probable outcome. Suits in the hope of settlement would be pretty effectively discouraged. It is entirely apparent that our judicial system must before many years be recon sidered and some measure of relief given to the courts, and I venture the prediction that it will be found not in the enlargement of court houses or the increase in the num ber of judges but in providing effective means of examining cases at their inception and in making costs for mistaken judgment more severe. SAMUEL J. ELDER. BOSTON, MASS., April, 1903.

ILLINOIS Generally speaking, the congestion of business in the trial courts, in my judgment, is due to the fact that, under the laws of some of the states, the judges practically are not allowed to take part in the trial of a case. In Illinois, for instance, he may not speak to the jury, except in writing. This is, of course, not true of the Federal courts in Illinois. It would be very interesting to trace the origin of these two attitudes of the public

toward the judiciary. Orie is the outcome of the Virginia jealousy of judicial power, as far back as Jefferson's time. Many of the western states are under the influence of that early attitude, because of the fact that their civil institutions were set up by the people who came from Virginia and Kentucky. PETER S. GROSSCUP. CHICAGO, ILL., April, 1905.