Mr. WOODWARD. The gentleman, with others, voted down an amendment which contained a relief for the courts from those very subjects. I Mr. WOODWARD. If the gentleman is now established in our Commonwealth. thinks the courts ought to be relieved I want simply to give further assistance from them, why did he not vote for it? to its ministers, and further aid in the Mr. COCHRAN. I do not see the point disposition of the business which is before of the gentleman's inquiry. If he will it, and that is the public necessity which tell me where or when I had the opportu- we should provide for. I am not in favor nity to do so, I will try to reply. and have not been in favor of the creation of new general tribunals in the State. believe, sir, that when a case has been tried in the court of common pleas, it should go directly up to the highest court in the State having appellate jurisdiction and be there finally determined. Having this view, if I had been present, I should have been constrained to vote against the institution of intermediate courts, and, sir, I do not believe that it is imposing too much labor upon the Supreme Court of this State to require it to decide these cases as they are taken up to it on writs of error or appeal from the subordinate tribunals. I believe that the Supreme Court of the State is adequate to that duty, and I have voted to increase the number of the judges of that court by two to give them further help and to enable them to divide the labor, to some extent, among a larger number of judges. Mr. COCHRAN. There were other things contained in that amendment which I could not vote for. I might have voted for that amendment if that had been the only thing in it; and if I had so understood it, I should have voted for it, no doubt; but I do not understand that the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia, against which I voted, met that particular point. It provided for depriving the judges of patronage in the matter of appointing commissioners and things of that description; but it did not, as I understand, interfere with their jurisdiction in the particular matters of local concern to which I have referred. I think it was altogether a different proposition from that which I was discussing when the gentleman interposed his inquiry. of Now, sir, what is the effect this piling on of miscellaneous matter upon our courts? The effect of it is the delay, and the disturbance, and the interruption which occur in the trial of causes. The court meets in the morning with a cause pending and a jury in the box; and one hour of the morning session is probably occupied with the disposition of this miscellaneous business, and there the jury sit, and there the court sits, and there is nothing done in the dispatch of the particular case which is on trial. The court meets in the afternoon, and a scene very similar to that of the morning occurs again. Every member of the bar who has some miscellaneous matter of the character which I have partially described, obtrudes it upon the court at the time of its meeting and delays the court and keeps it off from taking up the case which is pending before it; and so time is lost and trials are delayed and the disposition of causes is postponed, and thus it is that the judicial system of Pennsylvania is overloaded and unable to discharge the business which is piled upon it, largely because of the course of our legislation. Sir, I do not want to disturb the symmetry of the system of the judiciary as it Mr. Chairman, the Legislature of th's State has, within a year or two, done a very wise thing in passing a law which permits the judges of the Supreme Cours simply to affirm a judgment where they think the court below has decided it correctly, relieving them from the labor of writing opinions, giving the reasons for their affirmation of that judgment. That is a great relief to the Supreme Court of the State, necessarily so; and it is so great a relief (because I apprehend that the proportion of the cases affirmed is very greatly larger than the proportion of cases reversed) that the court has its labors largely diminished by that single provision of the act of Assembly. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court of this State is adequate, fully adequate, or soon will be, if not now-fully adequate to the decision of all causes brought before it, with the exercise of ordinary industry, by the addition of two judges to the number of those who now occupy the bench. But, sir, I do not want that court divided. I voted this morning against the election of its judges by districts, and I cannot vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Fayette, now pending, because, as I understand, he proposes to make it a sort of divided court-a dual court. We are to have a court of three judges, in the first place, to act as a court of appeals; and then a Supreme Court proper, who, as I understand it, are to be superior to that court of appeals, and, in certain cases, are to determine the causes which are brought before it. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any occasion whatever for dividing the Supreme Court, or for distributing its labors between two courts. If I thought there was I should have been in favor, probably, of the intermediate court proposed by the majority, and one of the minority, of the Committee on the Judiciary; but I believe that our system of Pennsylvania jurisprudence, as now established, with additional help to the judges, is adequate to the discharge of the judicial work of the Commonwealth. Mr. Chairman, it is true, beyond the power of successful contradiction, that in many of the judicial districts of this State the business is very far in arrear, and I believe it to be equally true that that business cannot be brought up by the present judicial force which we have in this State. Therefore I am in favor of relieving our courts of common pleas from a part of the burden which is now inposed upon them; and I proposed-for gentlemen have talked here of propositions which they made at different times in the Convention--and I did, at one time, make propositions myself with regard to this very matter, and one of those propositions was to institute in every county containing a population of at least thirty thousand persons, a probate court, in relief of the courts of common pleas. That probate court would relieve the court of common pleas of a large mass of the miscellaneous business of which I have already spoken, which is an obstruction in the way of the discharges of its other judicial duties. That probate court, taking the place of the register and of the register's court, and of the orphans' court, would discharge, economically, all their duties, with the services of one man as judge and one man as clerk, because it would not cost the counties one cent more, if as much, to sustain that probate court as it does to sustain all these, with the fees turned into the county treasury, which are collectable by law on proceedings in those courts; and with that probate court established, you would relieve your courts of common pleas from a great deal of the burden which is now imposed upon them. And, sir, I proposed to go one step further in what seemed to me a measure of reform, and that was that instead of the present board of county commissioners you should establish a county board, one member of it to be learned in the law, who should not only discharge the duties of the board of county commissioners as it now exists, but should discharge also the duties of the court of quarter sessions with regard to matters connected with roads, townships, the creation of boroughs, and other local matters of that character, and in that way you would take off from the courts at once a large portion of the burden which is now imposed upon them and which impedes their proceedings and the transaction of their business; and they being so relieved, the people of the county and of the several districts would have their judicial business transacted in a prompt manner, without denial or delay, as the Constitution of this State, in the Declaration of Rights, provides that it shall be done. In that way I contend you would have a full administration of justice, and you would relieve the courts, further, of one of those things which is most calculated to degrade them and to bring them into connection with questions, the consideration of which and the disposition of which deprive them, to a large extent, of the consideration and respect of the community, for it is beyond question that these matters of local concern, these petty matters about the creation of townships and the laying out of roads, and things of that sort, are the very things which bring the courts into contact with a certain class of people with whom it is no credit to them to be brought in contact, and which draws upon the courts, unfortunately, the suspicion that they are controlled, more or less, by considerations which gentlemen here have so strongly denounced. Those very things, small matters in themselves, are in the courts like local matters in your Legislature. They operate in the same way judicially as these local questions operate legislatively, and they do certainly tend to impair the con fidence and respect of the community in the courts and the judges who sit and administer justice in them. I do not say that it is justly so or unjustly so. I simply state what I am sure, from my observation and experience, is the fact. Mr. Chairman, without delaying the committee further, I will simply state that I am in favor of so arranging, if it can be done, the election of judges, both State and district, in this State, that the minority shall be represented. I shall note for that proposition in whatever shape it comes up, provided it is not connected with other matters which cannot receive my assent. It was that feature in the minority report of the gentleman from Fayette which attracted to it my approbation, and I was in hopes that I should, be able to go with him all the way through on this subject, and to follow his lead; but on the pending proposition I cannot go with him. I cannot consent to the creation of an imperium in imperio-a second court inside of the Supreme Court. I want every question to go directly from the trial courts below up to the Supreme Appellate Court of the State without any interference, without any intermediate tribunal whatever. But, sir, if the gentleman from Fayette shall, in the further prosecution of this matter, present his proposition for the election of common pleas judges in the districts, in general accordance with the report which he made as one of the minority of the Judiciary Committee, I shall support that proposition, because I believe that it will be most productive of advantage to the public. Mr. KAINE. I will say to the gentlean from York that I intend, at the proper time, to offer that proposition. Mr. COCHRAN. I will most assuredly vote for it, if it is not connected with something which I do not approve. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Fayette (Mr. Kaine.) The question being put, the ayes were eight, not a majority of a quorum, so the amendment was not agreed to. journ its sessions for a single term, or less than a term, to any other suitable and convenient place." The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Frank lin. Mr. MACCONNELL. I move to amend the amendment, by striking out the words, "such one place as the Legislature may fix by law," and inserting, "at the Capital of the State." The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Allegheny to the amendment. Mr. CUYLER. If the gentleman will strike out the words "Capital of the State" and insert "Philadelphia," I will vote for it. [Laughter.] I move to strike out the words "Capital of the State," and insert "Philadelphia." The CHAIRMAN. That is not in order. There is an amendment to an amendment pending. Mr. CUYLER. Has the question been taken on the amendment to insert the words "Capital of the State?" The CHAIRMAN. No, sir. Mr. CUYLER. Is that amendment now pending? The CHAIRMAN. That is the amendment now pending. It is an amendment to an amendment, and the question is on that amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to, there being, on a division, ayes, thirty-seven; noes, twenty-eight. Mr. WORRELL. That is not a quorum. The CHAIRMAN. The question cannot be raised in that way. Mr. WORRELL. I raise the question that a quorum has not voted, and that there is not a quorum present. The CHAIRMAN. The question of a quorum cannot be raised in that way. The only way the question of a quorum can be raised is by the requisite number of gentlemen calling for a count. Mr. WORRELL. Well, I call for a count. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk has counted and reports that a quorum is present. The amendment of the gentleman from The CHAIRMAN. The question recurs Allegheny to the amendment of the genon the section. tleman from Franklin prevails. The question now is on the amendment as amended. Mr. SHARPE. I offer the following amendment, to come in at the close of the section: "The sessions of the court in banc shall be held at such one place as the Legislature may fix by law, and the judges of the said court shall reside at the place so fixed, but may for adequate reasons ad Mr. BIGLER. I suggest to the gentleman from Franklin that he strike out the provision about the judges residing at the Capital. What public necessity is there for requiring a judge to reside at a particular place? To require the court to be held there answers the purpose of the public. I move to amend by striking out the words requiring the judges to reside at Harrisburg. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Clearfield will be read by the Clerk. tion. Rogers, I know very well, told me that that they could do more work by going around; that the change from place to place was advantageous. Judge Woodward's experience may be the same way, or it may be different; but if you should select a place where they should stay, let Mr. SHARPE. I will accept the sugges- that place be where there will be the least quantity of eating done, and the most work will be done the less they eat. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. The modification is accepted. The amendment will be so modified. Mr. DODD. I hope this amendment will not prevail, unless there is some good reason for it that I am unable to discover. It strikes me that the proper thing would be to make the districts smaller and give suitors in the Supreme Court an opportunity to be heard without traveling all over the State. In other words, it is cheaper for the court to go to the suitors than for the suitors to go to the court. If you bring the Supreme Court to Philadelphia I should have to travel to carry a case for my clients, four hundred and fifty miles. That would be an expense to the client which amounts in some cases to a denial of justice. I hope that no such amendment will pass. Mr. D. W. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman: I hope it will pass, and I know from having had conversation with several gentlemen of the present Supreme Court that they allege that they can do almost as much more work at home here in Philadelphia, where they have their offices and their libraries and their machinery about them, as they can do when traveling about to any other place where the Supreme Court is held, either Harrisburg or Pittsburg. That is the admission of gentlemen composing the present court; and I think if we make a permanent place and require the judges to reside there-or we need not so require them, because, as a matter of course, if you make it permanent at one place, you will find the judges would reside there-they would work much easier and accomplish much more and with less labor. As for the gentleman bringing his clients with him to the Supreme Court, and its being very expensive on that account, I do not think he has ever done it yet. Mr. DODD. The gentleman will pardon me. I did not propose to do that, but clients have to pay my expenses when I come on their business. Mr. DARLINGTON. I do not know where the judges could do most work. Judge Mr. MACCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Lancaster that judges sitting at Harrisburg will have the advantage of the State library, which every one must see will be a very great advantage; and the bar going there to argue their cases will have access to the same library, which will be a very great convenience to them, and one which, I think, ought to operate on the minds of the legal gentlemen in this House. Mr. CUYLER. Mr. Chairman: I do not compose part of that numerous body that the gentleman who has just spoken designates as "every one," for I do not see it in the light that he does. The State law library is a very good one; but not a whit better, and probably not as good as the law library in the city of Philadelphia, and there are several private libraries here that bear a very favorable comparison with it. So that I do not know that there is any advantage in that direction. As to the remarks of the gentleman from Chester, I confess I do not understand them. I consider that the condition of a judge's stomach, his digestion, has much to do with the healthiness of his mind and the soundness of his decisions; and as for getting these judges in a place where they cannot eat good dinners and have good suppers, I do not believe in it for a single moment. I should consider whether a judge or any man whose soundness of opinion I desired to respect, was dyspeptic, in making up my mind whether he was a suitable man for the expression of an opinion. If his stomach was out of order, and he was dyspeptic, if he could not eat and enjoy a good dinner and a good supper, I should doubt very much whether he was in that healthy-minded condition that a judge ought to be. So I think that argument rather makes against the gentleman from Chester. I move to amend by striking out from the amendment the words "seat of government," and inserting "city of Philadelphia." The CHAIRMAN. The words have just been inserted, and an amendment to strike them out is not in order. Mr. CUYLER. The amendment has been modified since then. There has been no vote had as to the city of Philadelphia. It has been simply a vote to write in the words " Capital of the State." I modify it by proposing to insert after the words, "Capital of the State," the words, "to wit, the city of Philadelphia." [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would likewise hold that to be out of order, as displaying ignorance of the geography of the State. Mr. MITCHELL. Unless there is some pressing necessity for dragging the profession from the western part of the State to Harrisburg, I hope the courtesy of the Convention will be extended to the western members. We ask it as a matter of Courtesy that we shall not be taken to Harrisburg, consuming our time, doubling our expenses, unless there is some necessity for it. If the gentlemen of the Convention will show me any necessity for it, then I shall vote for it myself; but otherwise, I beg of them to extend to us common courtesy and not drag us to Harrisburg. Mr. GoWEN. Mr. Chairman: I am at a great loss to know how to vote upon this amendment. If I thought that this amendment was the stepping stone to securing the Capital of the State to Philadelphia, I should vote for the amendment; and if some gentleman from the west will give me an assurance on that question, I should like to vote for this amendment; but until the question of the permanency of the Capital is determined, it strikes me that this amendment should not prevail. If it is necessary that there should be but one place at which the Supreme Court sits, evidently some regard to the convenience of the suitors ought to prevail. In 1872 the number of cases in the Supreme Court from the Eastern district was four hundred and thirty-three; from the Middle district, ninety-six; and from the Western district, two hundred and forty-nine. Therefore, if the court was permanently located at Harrisburg, in which district there were only ninety-six cases, the members of the bar intending to argue four hundred and thirty-three cases would have to leave Philadelphia and go to Harrisburg; and the members of the bar in the Western district, having two hundred and forty-nine, would be obliged to leave their homes and go to Harrisburg; so that the counsel in six hundred and eightytwo cases would leave their district to accommodate those in ninety-six cases that go to Harrisburg. Again, it seems to me that locating the court in one particular place is not a proper subject of constitutional enactment. You may have an epidemic raging at the particular locality. We all remember that it is only a year or two ago since there was something of the kind at Harrisburg, and if the court is fixed to one particular spot by the Constitution, it might present a very awkward question. I take it that if there is any one place in the State that is better suited than another, it is Philadelphia, for the reason that the greatest population clusters about Philadelphia, and the conveniences of getting from Philadelphia to counties within one hundred miles all around it are so great that many of the members of the bar from adjoining counties can leave their homes in the morning, argue their cases in Philadelphia, and return at night to their own homes. I earnestly trust that in a House in which there is only one or two more than a quorum, this question of locating the court at a place at which there is not more than one-tenth or one-eighth of the business will not prevail. Mr. KAINE. Will the gentleman allow me to make a suggestion? Mr. GoWEN. Certainly. Mr. KAINE. Although it may be very convenient for the members of the bar in Philadelphia, and those living in the counties immediately around it, to have the Supreme Court located here, I want him to remember that when this Convention came to Philadelphia to stay here the members from the country had very great trouble in getting places to stay. Now, can he give the members of the bar in the western part of the State any assurance that they will be any better provided when they come here to attend the Supreme Court, that they can get places to stay, than we had when we came here to attend the sessions of the Convention? Mr. GoWEN. I do not think the ordinary run-if I may use the expression of members of the bar are quite so fastidious as the members of this Convention. We can generally accommodate in the city of Philadelphia nearly the bar of the entire State. |