Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/609

 576

The Green Bag

counsel; for the United States so experienced and well known a lawyer as the present Dis trict Attorney, Hon. Asa P. French, and for the prisoner such equally well-known and distinguished lawyers as Hon. B. B. Jones and Mr. John H. Casey, who came into the case even before the indictment was returned, at the request of the court, in accordance with the loyal instincts of the bar. The gentle men on both sides took up the investigation at the earliest possible moment so that, with their assistance, the court moved with abso lute confidence. Therefore, this instance

The Defeat of Judiciary NEW JERSEY is one of the states pos sessing an antiquated and needlessly cumbersome system of courts. As there has been no change in it since the adoption of the present state constitution in 1884, the system has been outgrown, the business growing too fast to be accommodated and the wheels of justice becoming clogged. The leaders of the New Jersey bar, as well as the judges, have long realized the need of reform. Five of the ablest lawyers in New Jersey were appointed to a commission authorized by vote of the legislature, and prepared an amendment to the constitution making the needed changes in court organization. The amendment was approved by the State Bar Association at a meeting held in September, 1906, the Association voting to make an active campaign on its behalf. The amendment substituted for the existing Chancery Court, Supreme Court, Court of Errors and Appeals, and Circuit Court, one Supreme Court consisting of an Appeals Division, a Chancery Division, and a Law Division. It reduced the number of judges in the higher courts from thirty to twentyone and their total compensation from $243,500 to $213,000. The amendment also established one court for each county, with all the powers of the present Quarter Sessions, Common Pleas, Oyer and Terminer, Orphans' and Circuit courts. The State Bar Association by a large majority supported the amendment, as did also the Hudson County Bar Association and other representative professional bodies; its passage was earnestly advised by the judges of the highest state courts; two sessions of the

illustrates that, with due caution and the assistance of proper counsel, even capital cases may advance quite as satisfactorily in the United States as in England. However, in view of the fact that my pur pose was simply to follow out the line of your article in the September magazine to which I referred, and to show by concrete illustra tions the necessity of proper vigilance, rather than the advocacy of any attempt at a royal road to relief, this communication has gone far enough, and perhaps too far. Portland, Maine, Sept. 24, 1909.

Reform in New Jersey legislature passed the amendment; Governor Fort, who was formerly a Supreme Court justice, was one of its most zealous and able protagonists, and it was endorsed by the leaders of the New Jersey bar with but few exceptions. The press of the state, with the exception of a small opposing minority, also conducted an earnest publicity cam paign in favor of the amendment. There was, to be sure, some opposition, though most of it did not come from influ ential quarters. The objections made were so specious as scarcely to require answering. For example, the mistaken assertions were made that the proposed amendment abridged the right of trial by jury, that it conferred on the Supreme Court the dangerous preroga tive of making its own rules of practice, that it abolished the right of removing judges by impeachment, that it invaded the province of the legislature, that it conferred on the Governor a dangerous appointive power that might be used for partisan purposes, that it would mean greatly increased expense, and that it would deal a blow at popular govern ment by eliminating the lay element from the personnel of the new Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. The frivolity and baselessness of these objections was exposed in the course of a vigorous publicity cam paign. Every one in the state had ready means of knowing all about the proposed amend ment when he went to the polls to vote for it, and the enlightened opinions of disinterested men upon whom he could safely rely for advice were set before the eyes of every voter. On September 14 the amendment.