Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/330

 EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT prove of the increase in number and quality of special masters to relieve judges. The limitation of continuances is approved by Mr. Gibbes, and opposed by Mr. Fiero. The elimination of bills of exceptions is approved by Judge Swayze and Mr. Elder, and objected to by Mr. Gibbes. The abolition of briefs is approved by Judge Swayze, but opposed by Mr. Fiero. An increase in costs is regarded as essential by Mr. Elder, but though its efficacy is admitted, it is not favored by Messrs. Fiero and Westenhaver. The summons for directions is regarded as an improvement by Messrs. Fiero, Hayes, Gibbes. and Elder, but under the Ohio practice seems unnecessary to Mr. Westenhaver. There are differences in American practice which English judges do not have to contend with, such as the consti tutional right of trial by jury mentioned by Judge Dillon, and the general increase in con stitutional questions referred to by Mr. Rogers. The excessive detail and the great opportunity for appeals on technicalities in practice under the New York Code are emphasized by all of the New York contributors. Segregation of different classes of common law actions in separate courts is commended by Messrs. Stockbridge and Elder. On the whole it would seem that many of the details of the English procedure can be wisely adopted in different localities without serious change in present systems. The most important of these would seem to be the sum mons for directions. Though the importance of this would be diminished if the trial of cases could be effectively limited to experts, in this country that development seems a product of the remote future. However certain it may be that the important trials in future must be conducted by trained specialists, it seems unlikely that we shall for many years estab lish, a professional sentiment so strong that a strict division of barristers and solicitors can be maintained. As long as inexperienced and ill-trained lawyers must take up the time of the courts it seems of importance that they should be forced to hammer their cases into proper shape for trial under the direction of competent subordinates of the judges, and it is submitted that the tendency to settle cases would be greatly increased if parties were forced to promptly prepare them, and issues

were distinctly marked out at an early stage of their development. Our modern pleadings avoid the injustice of the older technicalities, but we should recognize their weaknesses and strive to remedy thein. One other suggestion which calls for com paratively little change under our established methods in proportion to the results obtain able, is the assignment of special classes of cases to special judges. Commercial cases where time is of the essence need opportuni ties for speedy hearing which may well be refused to that class of cases which lawyers and their clients to-day regard with most dis favor, and the multiplication of which on our jury lists is the greatest cause of congestion. Opinions may well differ as to the effect upon these cases of speedy or delayed hearing. Mr. Miller thinks that prompt hearings would dis courage much of this litigation which is gen erally deemed dishonest, but a former counsel for the Boston & Maine Railroad once said that if prompt hearing were given to their cases of this nature they would occupy the trial courts of Massachusetts to the exclusion of everything else for a year. He believed that delay afforded greater opportunities for settlement. At least there would be general agreement that promptness is less important for these cases than for commercial cases, and the results of the establishment of the separate Commercial Court in Baltimore will be awaited with interest. It is submitted that it is along these lines of specialization that improvement in the rapidity with which cases can be handled must be looked for. Much is said in these commentaries of the desirability of speciali zation of counsel for these purposes, but only Judge Stockbridge has called attention to the equal importance of specialization on the part of trial judges. And finally we must admit that the crux of the difficulty is exposed by Mr. Hayes when he puts the blame on ourselves. Among all professions the law alone deliberately divides its forces, so that one half, of varying compo nents, is ever striving to perpetuate its his toric defects and take advantage of every device to prolong the process of justice. This to be sure is the will of the immediate client, but are we as a body, blameless in culti vating this code of ethics?