Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/585

 444

THE GREEN BAG

equity cases as has been done in the codes of many of the States. I regret this be cause such a change makes for simplicity and expedition in the settlement of judi cial controversies. It is clear, however, that the old equity practice could be greatly simplified. It has been done in England, and it ought to be done in the Federal courts. One reason for delay in the lower courts is the disposition of judges to wait an undue length of time in the writing of their opin ions or judgments. I speak with confi dence on this point, for I have been one of the sinners myself. In English courts the ordinary practice is for the judge to deliver judgment immediately upon the close of the argument, and this is the practice that ought to be enforced as far as possible in our courts of first instance. It is almost of as much importance that the court of first instance should decide promptly as that it should decide right. If judges had to do so, they would become much more attentive to the argument during its presentation and much more likely on the whole to decide right when the evidence and arguments are fresh in their mind. In the Philippines we have adopted the system of refusing a judge his regular monthly stipend unless he can file a certificate, with his receipt for his salary, in which he certifies on honor that he has dis posed of all the business submitted to him within the previous sixty days. This has had a marvelously good effect in keeping the dockets of the court clear. It may be asserted as a general propo sition, to which many legislatures seem to be oblivious, that everything which tends to prolong or delay litigation between indi viduals, or between individuals and corpo rations,' is a great advantage for that liti gant who has the longer purse. The man whose all is involved in the decision of the lawsuit is much prejudiced in a fight through the courts, if his opp6nent is able, by rea son of his means, to prolong the litigation and keep him for years out of what really

belongs to him. The wealthy defendant can almost always secure a compromise or yielding of lawful rights because of the necessities of the pocr plaintiff. Many people who give the subject hasty con sideration regard the system of appeals, by which a suit can be brought in a justice of the peace court and carried through the other courts to the Supreme Court, as the acme of human wisdom. The question is asked: "Shall the poor man be denied the opportunity to have his case re-examined in the highest tribunal in the land? " Gen erally the argument has been successful. In truth, there is nothing which is so det rimental to the interests of the poor man as the right which, if given to him, must be given to the .other and wealthier party, of carrying the litigation to the court of last resort, which generally means, two, three, and four years of litigation. Cculd any greater opportunity be put in the hands of powerful corporations to fight off just claims, to defeat, injure or modify the legal rights of poor litigants, than to held these litigants off from what is their just due by a lawsuit for such a period, with all the legal expenses incident to such a controversy? Every change of procedure that limits the right of appeal works for the benefit in the end of the poor litigant and puts him more on an equality with a wealthy opponent. It is probably true that the disposition of the litigation in the end is more likely to be just when three tri bunals have passed upon it than when only one or two have settled it; but the in justice which meantime has been done by the delay to the party originally entitled to the judgment generally exceeds the advan tage that he has had in ultimately winning the case. Generally in every system of courts there is a court of first instance, an intermediate court of appeals and a court of last resort. The court of first instance and the intermediate appellate court should be for the purpose of finally disposing in a just and prompt way of all controversies