|
"The Constitutional History of New York ..." |
|
Governor Seward, in his message, in 1841, continued
his consideration of the judicial system, and the necessity
of its revision by constitutional amendment, referring to
the "defective organization of the courts of law and
equity," and suggesting that the patronage and power of
the chancellor was too great to be reposed in a single
judge, that the supreme court was "oppressed with business," and that the common pleas "had in a great degree
been deserted by suitors." He noted the difficulties attending a reorganization of the higher courts, consequent
on wide differences of opinion among judges and members of the legal profession, and urged the adoption of
some plan that would afford needed relief. Referring to
his suggestions concerning clerks of courts and the political function of the courts of common pleas contained in
a previous message, he noted the passage of laws in 1839
and 1840 reducing the fees of clerks, providing for simplifying the procedure, and transferring from the courts of
common pleas to the supervisors the power of appointing
county treasurers and superintendents of the poor, the
abolition of the office of commissioner of deeds, except
in cities, thus dispensing with about 3,000 officers, and
increasing the jurisdiction of justices' courts to controversies involving not more than $100. "It is gratifying
to notice the progress of these tribunals in the favor and
confidence of the people." In 1841 the legislature passed
a proposed constitutional amendment revising the judiciary article, continuing the court for the trial of impeachments and correction of errors substantially as then
constituted, reorganizing the court of chancery by providing for a chancellor and not less than two nor more than
four assistant chancellors, for two additional justices of
the supreme court, and for the creation of not more than
two other courts of law with supreme court jurisdiction;
providing for general and special terms, also "a court of
review," to he composed of the judges of other courts,
to hear appeals which might otherwise be taken to the
court for the correction of errors, and abolishing the office of circuit judge and vice chancellor. The "court of
review" suggested in this amendment was doubtless the
germ of the idea which found expression five years later
in the provision in the new Constitution for a court of appeals, and showed the tendency to confine judicial functions to judicial officers instead of vesting the highest
judicial powers in a body like the senate, composed largely of laymen.
In 1842 Governor Seward referred to the amendment revising the judiciary article, passed by the legislature of 1841, and commended to the new legislature the reconsideration of the amendments "in that spirit of candor, concession, and patriotism which ought especially to prevail in changing fundamental laws. If the amendments shall be found suitable to promote a more efficient administration of justice, they will be hailed with much satisfaction by the people." The legislature did not pass these amendments. Governor William C. Bouck, in 1843, in his first message, called attention to the suggestion by his predecessors concerning a revision of the judiciary, and urged further consideration of the subject by the legislature, observing that the Constitution had not "made adequate provision for the expansion of the judicial system with the increased population and business of the state." He said he was not in favor of "radical changes unless there is a plain necessity for making them," but "would enlarge the present system, so as to meet the public wants." The legislature gave the subject no consideration at this session. Governor Bouck, in 1844, discussed the subject at some length in his annual message, urging the importance of its immediate consideration by the legislature. He suggested an increase in the membership of the supreme court and the court of chancery. He said the court for the correction of errors had, "for a considerable time, been overburdened with business; and it has become necessary to apply some remedy without delay. It is probable that so numerous a body can never discharge all the judicial business that may be brought before it; and it seems to be pretty generally understood that there ought to be a new organization of that high tribunal." Amendments were presented at this session of the legislature providing for a supreme court to consist of one chief justice and seven associate justices, for eight judicial circuits, and for two assistant chancellors, reorganizing the court of errors so as to make it consist of eight judges, one to be elected from each senate district, giving the governor power to appoint judges of the court of common pleas and justices of the peace; increasing the associate justices of the supreme court from two to twelve; adding sixteen judges to the court of errors, four to be chosen from each of four prescribed judicial districts; relative to removal of judicial officers; providing for the election of county judges; providing for associate chancellors, and a general revision of the judiciary article. Two judiciary amendments were passed by this legislature, one of which provided for three associate chancellors, and the other for two additional justices of the supreme court. Governor Silas Wright, in 1845, called attention to the amendments passed in 1844, and recommended them to the consideration of the legislature, but they were not passed again. All these matters were disposed of for the time by an act passed at this session, submitting to the people the question of holding a constitutional convention. I have now traced somewhat briefly the progress of the discussion and agitation concerning the reorganization of the judicial system. This discussion had continued twelve years without any practical result. But the consideration of this subject through this long period was not without effect. The bench and the bar and the people generally were studying the subject, and numerous plans of greater or less merit were brought to public attention. It was conceded that the situation demanded relief, but great diversity of opinion is manifest from the failure to pass many amendments, and from the failure to repass amendments which had been agreed to by a previous legislature. The result was that no progress was made except in the presentation and comparison of plans, and a general and continued discussion of the whole subject. Hence, when the [1846] Convention assembled, it was untrammeled by any attempted partial revision, and was at liberty to consider the judicial system as embodied in the Constitution of 1821, and which had continued twenty-four years without constitutional change, and construct a new system or reconstruct and revise the old one in the light of experience, and with the benefit of ample executive, legislative, and other public discussion. How much of the seed of judicial reform sown during this period of agitation bore fruit in the new [1846] constitution will appear when the work of the Convention is under review. * * * [Article 5 of the Constitution] provides in substance: For a court for the trial of impeachments and the correction of errors, with the membership, and, substantially, the powers, provided by the first Constitution. The power of impeachment vested in the assembly under the first Constitution was continued. The tenure of office of chancellor and justice of the supreme court was also continued, with an age limit at sixty years. The supreme court was to consist of a chief justice and two associate justices. The state was to be divided by law into not less than four nor more than eight circuits, and a judge was to be appointed for each circuit in the same manner, and hold his office for the same tenure, as a justice of the supreme court, and who should possess the powers of a justice of the supreme court at chambers, and in the trial of issues joined in the supreme court, and in courts of oyer and terminer, and gaol delivery. The legislature was authorized to vest equity powers in the circuit judges and in the county courts, or in subordinate courts subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the chancellor. County judges and recorders were to hold office for five years, subject to removal by the senate, on the recommendation of the governor, for cause. The chancellor, supreme court justices, and circuit judges were prohibited from holding any other office or public trust, and all votes for them for an elective office given by the legislature or the people were to be void. Four important changes had been accomplished by the new judiciary article; namely, the supreme court had been reorganized and its membership reduced, and the offices of the incumbents were to be terminated when the Constitution took effect. The working force of the supreme court had been increased from five to eleven judges, including circuit judges. The tenure of office of local judges had been limited to a fixed term, and the higher judicial officers had been prohibited from becoming candidates for office. This was the net result of a long and fierce struggle. [pages 69-73; 687-688]
|
|
Page 6
 The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York |