Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/266

 The Efficient Handling of Judicial Business tion of a most iniquitous fee system was secured. The act did not, however, em body all the reforms that I had asked for. I served on the bench for several years after the passage of the act above re ferred to with some satisfaction to my self, and, I believe, to litigants. I pre pared and kept in my desk a tabulated list, to which I could refer at any moment, showing the exact status of each case pending in my district. On the first of the month this list was brought up to date, the cases finally disposed of during the month being struck off, the new cases added, and the progress in each pending case indicated. With due re gard to the real interests of the parties, and to the demands upon the time of counsel, I tried to see that each case was progressing. Some dilatory mem bers of the bar probably dubbed this unjustifiable meddling, but the great majority undoubtedly approved. There were times when my zeal was inclined to lag, for in many cases I could have avoided work, without being criticized, until the lawyers made a move. But a realization of the anxiety and the actual suffering in the case of poor per sons, which litigants would undergo while the lawyers and myself dallied in the usual way, was enough to bring me to my senses, and I would reach for my tabulated list. Meanwhile any doubt which I may have had on the subject had been re moved. There is absolutely no reason why courts should not be put upon a business basis. Laws should be passed determining just what actions and spe cial proceedings shall come before each judge of first instance, rendering him responsible for the methodical dispatch of all matters placed under his control, and attaching penalties, from suspen sion of pay to removal, for failure in that regard. Some form of report to,

235

and inspection by, a central authority is also necessary, because judges are human and have been known to disre gard laws which could be evaded with impunity. In the Philippines trial judges are required by law to render their decisions within three months after submission (Act No. 1552, Sec. 1); in Maryland the period is two months (Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 23); in Cal ifornia, one month (Code of Civil Pro cedure, Sec. 632). But no one will maintain that judges in each of these jurisdictions do not at times exceed the statutory period without reasonable excuse. Lawyers naturally hesitate to complain for fear of antagonizing the judge. In one case in the Philippines, where the lawyers did complain, the judge said that the clerk had not called his attention to the cases. But the law, of course, placed the responsibility on the judge, and not on the clerk. The report should be rendered quarterly at least, and should show the status of each action and proceeding, and the date of each important step taken in it since the last previous report. Matters in the hands of examiners, executors, trus tees, etc., should be included, for the judge of first instance should be re quired to exact promptness from all such persons, as they also are inclined to be dilatory if not followed up. The central authority might be the appellate court, one of whose members might be excused from decision writing in order to examine the reports and make neces sary inspections. Apart from the exam ination of reports and inspections, pre judiced persons should have the right to call the attention of the appellate court to violations of the law. In case of a violation of the law, it would be the duty of the appellate court to summon the delinquent trial judge before it to show cause why the proper penalty