Improving the judicial administration of justice by improving the methods of selecting judges and by improving court procedure, with emphasis on their application in Arizona

Citation preview

IM P W iim THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION Of JUSTICE BT IMPROVING THE METHODS OF SELECTING JUDGES AND BY IMPROVING COURT PROCEDURE WITH EMPHASIS ON THEIR APPLICATION IN ARIZONA

A T h esis P re s e n te d t o The F a c u lty o f th e G raduate School The U n iv e r s ity o f S o u th ern C a lif o r n ia

In P a r t i a l F u lf illm e n t o f th e R equirem ents f o r th e Degree M aster o f A rts

BY E* John H ilk e r t Ju n e, 1942

UMI Number: EP63724

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertation Publishing

UMI EP63724 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

cs

(‘tr H A

This thesisj writ ten by .................................. JO H N ...inL K E R T........................... under the direction of h.XB. F acu lt y C om m it te e , a n d a p p r o v e d by a l l its m e m b e r s , has been pres ente d to an d ac ce pt e d by the C ouncil on Gradu ate S t u d y an d Research in par ti al fulfill­ m e n t o f th e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e d e g r e e of .............................

D ean

Secretary

F aculty C om m ittee

Chairfman

.

I

(ffeei

STUDY WITHOUT THOUGHT IS VAIN; THOUGHT WITHOUT STUDY IS BEHILOUS—C oiifuciua. T h is i s th e s p i r i t i n udiich t h i s stu d y hasbbe en u n d e rta k e n .

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I.

PACE

INTRODUCTION

1

Law d e fin e d and an aly zed

........................................

1

R ules o f human c o n d u c t .....................

4

E v o lu t io n o f l a w ..............................

5

P r in c ip le o f law —u n c h a n g in g : .......................... Laws—n o t s e lf - e x e c u tin g

.

. * * ...................................... 8

C o u rts—d e fin e d and a n a l y z e d ............................... C r itic is m s o f c o u r ts

* • * * * . ......................

C r itic is m s o f t h e J u d i c i a l p e rso n n e l S tatem en t o f th e problem

7

9 11

* . . .

18

...............................

19

Review o f r e l a t e d in v e s t ig a tio n s

♦ ..................

SO

P ro ced u re fo llo w ed in t h i s s tu d y and r e s e a r c h

S3

O rg a n iz a tio n o f th e rem ain d er o f th e t h e s i s *

S7

PART I IMPROVING THE METHOD OF SELECTING JUDGES II*

AN INDEPENDENT JU D ICIA R Y ............................................

f 30

P o s itio n o f c o u r ts in our d em o cratic form o f government F u n ctio n o f th e J u d ic ia r y . . * * ......................

30 33

Methods o f s e l e c ti n g J u d g e s .............................................34 Background o f th e independent J u d ic ia r y in th e U n ited S t a t e s ............................................

35

Iv CHAPTER

PAGE Val&e o f an in d ep en d en t j u d i c i a r y ..........

59

S h if t t o th e e l e c t i v e method o f s e l e c ti n g judges in th e U n ited S ta te s » • • • • • • » I d o la tr o u s w o rship o f th e C o n s titu tio n

•

. .

T ir tu e o f e q u a li t y o f j u s t i c e ...................

40 42

45

In flu e n c e o f c u re n t o p in io n s o f th e p u b lic on th e j u d i c i a r y

...........................

In s ta n c e s o f j u d i c i a l courage in h i s t o r y

•.

47

In flu e n c e s which in tim id a te th e j u d i c i a r y

•. •

49

......................

Impeachment o f ju d g es H I*

45

DESIRABLE QUALITIES OF A JUDGE

. . . . . . . .

52 54

" F r o n tie r 1* j u d g e s ..........................

54

In c re a s in g demand f o r more te c h n ic a l t r a i n i n g

55

T h e o rie s a s t o th e n a tu re and so u rce o f common l a w ...........................................

57

Types o f l e g a l minds and a t t i t u d e s d e s i r a b le f o r j u d i c i a l o f f i c e .....................................

58

E f f e c ts o f f r a t e r n i z a t i o n among judges and l a w y e r s ..........................

61

In flu e n c e s o f custom s and u t i l i t y on j u d i c i a l d e c is io n s

• . ..........................

65

U n d e sira b le t r a i t s in judges Courage a s p a r t o f a judge*s make-up L ess e s s e n t i a l v i r t u e s ..........................

68 . .

♦.

75 74

V

CHAPTER

PAGE E f f o r t s o f A tto rn ey -G en er a l F rank Murphy to Improve th e f e d e r a l J u d ic ia r y • » . * * * «

^IV *

76

SELECTING JUDGES BY POPULAR VOTE—THE METHOD USED IN ARIZONA...........................* ....................

77

Laws r e g u la tin g th e e l e c ti v e in A rizona . *

*

77

*

79

A p p ra isa l by t h e Am erican Bar A s s o c ia tio n o f th e e l e c ti v e method a s used in A rizona

•

E f f o r t s o f th e A rizona S ta te Bar t o sec u re b e t t e r r e s u l t s from th e

e l e c ti v e method .

*

79

A su rv e y o f m ethods in nom inating f o r j u d i c i a l o f f i c e * . ♦ .................. . ♦ * . . . Methods o f e l e c t i o n ...........................................

SO 82

Trend away from s e le c ti o n o f judges by e l e c t i v e method t o some form o f appointm ent Arguments in fa v o r o f th e

. . .

•

82

e l e c t i v e method *

.

84

U n fav o rab le f e a t u r e s o f th e e l e c t i v e method ^-V *

.

THE APPOINTIVE METHOD QE SELECTING JUDGES . . An a n a ly s i s o f a p p o in tiv e methods . ........

88

♦ 104 104

E ig h te e n s t a t e s changing from e l e c t i v e t o a p p o in tiv e m ethods

. * . * .....................

105

S uggested p la n s on j u d i c i a l s e l e c t i o n and te n u re by J u n io r Bar C onferencet American Bar A sso c ia tio n * N om inating c o m m issio n .......................................

107

CHAPTER

PAGE Making th e appointm ent from th e l i s t o f nom inees su b m itted by th e commission » . .

114

C a lif o r n ia p la n o f s e l e c ti n g j u d g e s ....................... 115 O ther Methods o f s e l e c ti n g ju d g es

. * * . . .

116

P ro p o s a l o f l o c a l o p tio n t o choose betw een e l e c t i v e and a p p o in tiv e m e t h o d s ........................... 116 B anger o f j u d i c i a l ap p o in tm en ts becoming p o l i t i c a l p a tro n a g e

............................... . . . .

117

R e a c tio n o f th e e l e c t o r a t e t o th e a p p o in tiv e method . . . . . . . . . . . .

.................. * .

113

O p p o sitio n t o th e a p p o in tiv e method from v a rio u s so u rc e s ¥1.

JUDICIAL TENURE

......................................................... ..............................

D e f in ite o f t e n u r e .......................... F a c to rs i n j u d i c i a l te n u re

119 121 121

........................... 121

Methods o f rem oving ju d g e s : T o lu n ta ry r e t i r e m e n t ......................................................122 Compulsory r e tir e m e n t a t a f ix e d age . . . .

123

Removal by j u d i c i a l a c tio n

.................................... 126

Removal by e x e c u tiv e a c tio n

. . . . . . . .

127

E lim in a tio n b y l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n .......................128 E lim in a tio n by p o p u la r v o t e .................................... 133 R e tire m e n t p e n sio n s

137

v ii

PART I I IMPROVING COURT PROCEDURE CHAPTER ¥11.

PAGE

A, SURVEY OF THE PROGRESS MADE IN IMPROVING RULES OF GI¥XL PROCEDURE: IN FEDERAL AND IN ARIZONA COURTS . . . .

* ....................................

K inds o f c o n tr o l o v er c o u rt p ro c e d u re . . . .

141 141

New r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c ed u re prom ulgated f o r h o th t h e F e d e ra l and th e A rizona C ourts • .

143

H is to r y o f p ro g re s s made i n c i v i l p ro c e d u re by A riz o n a : Movement t o b rin g p ro c ed u re in A rizona in to co n fo rm ity w ith f e d e r a l p ro c e d u re . . . .

144

T ra n s fe r o f th e ru le -m a k in g power from th e l e g i s l a t u r e t o th e c o u rt i n A rizona . . .

145

P ro m u lg atio n o f r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re f o r th e c o u r ts o f A r i z o n a .......................................

146

T r a n s f e r o f ru le -m a k in g power t o th e c o u rt n o t a new experim ent

..........................

147

F u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o s im p lif y p ro c e d u re p la c e d upon Supreme C ourt o f A rizona

. . .

149

J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r th e t r a n s f e r o f th e r u l e m aking power t o c o u r t ............................................

149

F a ilu r e s o f th e p re v io u s code p ro c ed u re in A r i z o n a .....................................................................

150

v iii CHAPTER

PAGE J u d i c i a l re fo rm championed by W illiam Howard T a f t ..................................................................

151

YIII.DOES THE RULE-MAKING POWER BELONG TO THE COURTS OR TO THE LEGISLATURES?.................... R ule-m aking power in h e re n t in th e c o u rt

155

•. .

D e fe c ts o f common law p ro ced u re • . ...........

153

153

B eginning o f encroachm ent on th e ru le-m a k in g power by th e l e g i s l a t u r e in 1801

* * * * *

154

C o d e-p lead in g movement s t a r t e d by appearance o f F ie ld Code In New York in 1848 ..................

155

S pread o f th e c o d e -p le a d in g movement from th e F leld -C o d e b e g in n in g D e fe c ts o f c o d e -p le a d in g

* * * * * * * * *

156

• * . * * • » * * »

15?

A ttem pted d i c t a t i o n t o th e U n ited S ta te s C ir c u it C ourts as e a r l y a s 1792 by th e l e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u tiv e b ra n ch es o f Government r e p e lle d by th e c o u r t s ...........

157

No re a so n why l e g i s l a t u r e cannot d e le g a te ru le -m a k in g power t o c o u r ts i f l e g i s l a t u r e p o s s e s s e s t h a t power IX .

. • • * * * * * * . *

161

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION TESTING THE |dJLE-MAKING POWER IN THE COURTS . . . . . . . .

164

P io n e e rin g by th e s t a t e o f W ashington in e s t a b l i s h i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y ...............

164

ix CHAPTER

PAGE C o n s titu tio n a l q u e s tio n s r a i s e d : L e g a lity o f d e le g a tin g a s t r i c t l y l e g i s ­ l a t i v e fu n c tio n t o th e c o u rt

166

L oss o f power by th e c o u rt th ro u g h i t s lo n g a c q u ie sc e n c e t o th e l e g i s l a t u r e 's u s u rp e d p o w e r .................................................

166

L e g a li t y o f r u l e s made b y th e supreme C ourt o f th e S ta te o f W ashington under th e law which d e le g a te d th e power t o th e S u p e rio r c o u rt

..............................

167

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i ty o f a law which becomes e f f e c t i v e o n ly upon th e happening o f a c o n tin g e n t f u tu r e ev en t

. . . . . . . .

170

A lleg ed in v a s io n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s by p r e s c r ib in g th e talcin g o f d e p o s itio n s u n d er c o n d itio n s which invade th e sub­ s t a n tiv e - la w r i g h t s .....................................

170

L e g a lity o f a r u l e o f c o u r t w hich ab ro g ated a s t a t u t o r y mandate t o th e Judge t o i n ­ s t r u c t th e Ju ry t h a t no in fe r e n c e o f g u i l t a r i s e s from f a i l u r e o f accused t o t e s t i f y ain h i s own b e h a lf

.................................

L e g a li t y o f a r u l e o f c o u rt a d m ittin g a J o in t p a r t y - p l a i n t i f f w ith o u t th e s e rv in g

170

X

PAGE

CHAPTER o f an amended co m p lain t and o r i g i n a l summons on th e d e f e n d a n t ....................... ... . •

171

W isconsin law c h a lle n g e d becau se i t re s e rv e d t o th e l e g i s l a t u r e th e r i g h t t o r e - i n v e s t i t s e l f w ith th e ru le -m a k in g a u t h o r i t y

» * •

175

Hew M exico*s c rim in a l p ro c ed u re c h a lle n g e d in a ease which i s o f g r e a t s ig n if ic a n c e t o A rizo n a b ecause o f s i m i l a r i t y o f p e r ­ t i n e n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p ro v is io n s ....................... X.

174

SHOULD THE TRIAL GOURT HAVE PLENARY POWER TO . .

180

* .

180

» * * *

181

RELAX OH SUSPEND R U L E S ? ............................ .

.

Heed f o r g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y even in th e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re Hew J e r s e y P r a c ti c e Act o f 1912 as a p a t t e r n f o r a f l e x i b i l i t y p ro v is io n

F l e x i b i l i t y under th e E n g lis h Supreme Court o f J u d ic a tu r e Act o f 1873

* . ♦

182

A n a ly s is o f th e lim ite d f l e x i b i l i t y p ro v id ed f o r by th e new r u l e s o f f e d e r a l procedure* .

182

Lack o f com form ity betw een th e l e t t e r and th e s p i r i t o f th e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c ed u re

184

Absence o f p r o v is io n g r a n tin g p le n a r y powers t o c o u rt t o r e la x o r suspend r u l e .................. Heed f o r f l e x i b i l i t y shown by A tto rn e y -

185

xi CHAPTER

PAGE G en eral Homer Cummings* l e t t e r o f t r a n s ­ m i t t a l * . * . * * . . ........................... . * .

185

F l e x i b i l i t y p ro v id e d f o r in th e r u l e s o f th e perm anent C ourt o f I n t e r n a t io n a l J u s t i c e

187

Former bew ilderm ent in f e d e r a l c o u rt p r a c t i c e and p ro c ed u re a r e s u l t o f a m b ig u ity In a p r o v is io n o f th e F e d e ra l C onform ity Act o f 1872

188

Hew r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re s h o r t o f o b je c tiv e i n n o t p ro v id in g f o r more f l e x i b i l i t y

• •

188

.

190

\

XI*

PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE................................................ Opposing t h e o r i e s

in p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re s

190

A dvantages o f p r e - t r i a l p ro c ed u re a s conducted u n d er

th e new r u le s

♦ ................

191

A rizo n a* s new p r e - t r i a l p r a c t i c e now in con­ fo rm ity w ith th e new f e d e r a l p r a c t i c e

• .

191

C o n c ilia tio n em phasized in p r e - t r i a l p r a c t ic e in Germany

* • » • » » • • • • •

195

E n g lis h o r i g i n o f our form er p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re

195

American b e g in n in g s o f new p r e - t r i a l p ro c ed u re in D e tr o it • • » * « • • • « » •

194

I n tr o d u c tio n o f new p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re In Xos A ngeles

194

x ii CHAPTER

PAGE Some s e c t io n s in new r u l e s o f p ro c ed u re p e r t i n e n t t o p r e - t r i a l p r a c t ic e Harrowing th e is s u e d t o be t r i e d

195 ..........................

I n f o r m a lity o f p r e - t r i a l c o n fe re n c e s

. . . »

196 199

T r i a l do ck et s t a b i l i z e d and c o u rt work speeded by th e modern p r e - t r i a l p r a c t ic e

199

E lim in a tio n o f u n n e c e ssa ry la b o rio u s ex am in atio n s and c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n s o f w itn e s s e s

. . . . . . ...................................*

200

Avoidance o f t r i a l i n c a se s where i t would n o t be u s e f u l ...............................................

201

O b je c tio n s r a is e d t o modern p r e - t r i a l p ra c tic e

. . . . . .........................................

202

D efense o f modern p r e - t r i a l p r a c t i c e b ecause o f i t s p r e d ic a tio n on common-sense p r i n c i p l e s 204 XU.

TRIAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

. . . . . . . . .

206

F ix in g th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s e e in g t h a t th e Ju ry i s p ro p e rly i n s t r u c t e d on a l l v i t a l is s u e s

•

R e s p o n s ib ility p la c e d on t r i a l Judge by me S u p re/C o u rt o f A rizona under o ld law . . .

206

207

R e s p o n s ib ility s h i f t e d t o c o u n se l by th e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c ed u re

. . . . . . .

Sequence o f p ro c ed u re changed by having

208

x iii CHAPTER

PAGE co u n se lS s argum ent t o th e Ju ry p re c e d e th e c o u r t r s i n s t r u c t io n in s te a d o f fo llo w . .............................

it

209

P r o h ib itio n by an o ld law o f A rizona a g a in s t c o u rt 's a s s i s t i n g th e Ju ry w ith f u r t h e r i n ­ s t r u c t i o n s a f t e r d e l i b e r a ti o n s

had begun

210

A d d itio n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s in th e e v e n t o f a stym ied Ju ry made m andatory by C a lif o r n ia Code

211

Removal of th e p r o h i b i tio n a g a in s t f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s t o a stym ied Ju ry in th e o ld A rizo n a law im p lied by th e s i le n c e on t h i s p o in t in th e new r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re . * . .

211

Hew m ile s o f c r im in a l p ro c ed u re in A rizona e f f e c t i v e A p r il , 1940

•

211

L a titu d e g iv en t o th e Judge and l i m i t a t i o n s p la c e d upon him in commenting t o th e Jury on th e ev id en ce in a c a s e ..........................• • ♦ P e rs o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r J u ry s e r v ic e

* .

R e la tiv e c o s ts o f Ju ry and n o n -Ju ry t r i a l s .

.

213 216 218

D e s ira b le f l e x i b i l i t y , which a c t s a s shock a b s o rb e r a g a in s t a p u re ly l e g a l i s t i c c o u r t, p ro v id e d by th e Ju ry system • • • • • . • .

219

In flu e n c e o f J u r o r 's em otions on th e J u r y 's v e r d ic t

. . . . . . . . . . .

220

x iv CHAPTER

PAGE Wholesome in flu e n c e d e riv e d from mere e x is te n c e o f our Ju ry system . . . . . . .

220

P o s s ib le m o d ific a tio n s o r s u b s t i t u t i o n s f o r ju r y t r i a l s : T r i a l by ju d g es

/ • . . . . .................. .

.

220

A ju r y o f one judge and two la y members*

*

220

A ju r y composed e n t i r e l y o f e x p e r ts

•

221

♦ *

Complete co m bination o f judges and j u r o r s .

225

The a s s e s s o r sy stem

224

.......................

O p p o rtu n itie s f o r im proving th e ex am in atio n o f ju r o r s on t h e i r v o ir d i r e

......................

224

lu d ic r o u s s i t u a t i o n s c re a te d by A rizo n a law which com pels th e re a d in g o f p l a i n t i f f * s co m plaint t o th e ju r y

.......................

225

O p p o rtu n itie s f o r im proving th e j u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s t i c e by a g e n e r a l o v e rh a u lin g o f th e r u l e s o f ev id en ce

. . .

226

F e d e ra l and A rizona c i v i l p r a c t ic e and p ro c e d u ra l te c h n iq u e s u n if ie d and f a c i l i t a t e d by i d e n t i t y o f r u l e s n o t o n ly in s u b sta n c e b u t a ls o in arrangem ent XXII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

. . .

230

......................

233

S u m m a ry ................................................................

255

C o n c l u s i o n s ....................* .......................................... BIBLIOGRAPHY

259 266

CHAPTER I INTRODTJCTIOH S in ce th e J u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s tic e i s concerned w ith th e en fo rcem ent o f la w s, th e f i r s t c o n s id e ra ­ t i o n in a s tu d y o f c o u r ts and c o u rt p ro c e d u re s i s a p ro p e r co n cep t o f la w . The b ro ad term o f law may be d iv id e d i n t o two main g ro u p s: f i r s t , th e law s o f p h y s ic a l scien c e;; and second, t h e law s o f human a c t i o n .

T h is stu d y h a s n o t been concerned

i n any sen se w ith th e fo rm e r. The law s o f human a c ti o n may be su b d iv id e d i n to (1) t h e m o ral law , (2) th e d iv in e law , (3) th e m u n ic ip a l o r p o s i t i v e law , and (4) i n t e r n a t i o n a l law . Law became a n e c e s s i ty a s soon a s man came in to c o n ta c t w ith h i s fe llo w men. i s o l a t i o n , no law would e x i s t .

I f man liv e d i n com plete C o n tro v e rs ie s a r e th e

i n e v i t a b l e r e s u l t o f mankind l i v i n g t o g e t h e r ,

p riv a te

w a rfa re betw een man and man, l a t e r betw een group and gro u p , was th e f i r s t method o f s e t t l i n g c o n tr o v e r s ie s .

Might was

r i g h t and th e w i l l o f th e s tro n g man o r group p r e v a ile d . i I t was n o t lo n g , how ever, b e fo re i t became a p p a re n t t h a t l e s s v i o l e n t methods o f s e t t l i n g c o n tr o v e r s ie s had t o be e s ta b lis h e d .

G ra d u a lly , law su p p la n te d p r i v a t e w a rfa re as

a means o f s e t t l i n g i n d iv id u a l c o n tr o v e r s ie s .

£

I n sp ea k in g ab o u t th e fo rc e which compels obedience t o a l l law s o f human a c ti o n , C lark s a y s : The law s o f human a c ti o n in c lu d e a l l system s o f law s which a re a d d re ss e d t o men a s b e in g s p o s s e s s e d o f w i l l power and d i s c r e t i o n , and obedience t o which i s e n fo rc e d b y some form o f sa n c tio n * By th e te rm ♦ s a n c tio n , ♦ i n i t s r e l a t i o n t o law , i s m eant th e means w hich th e a u th o r o f th e law employs t o compel obedience t o i t ; th e p ro sp e c t o f some e v i l w hich w i l l fo llo w i t s d is o b e d ie n c e ; o r o f some b e n e f i t w hich w iH fo llo w i t s o b se rv a n c e , o r both* The co m p ellin g fo rc e w hich C lark e a l l s f,s a n c tlo n a t, i s m a n ife s t i n v a rio u s forms*

In m oral law , w hich h as i t s

o r i g i n In a g e n e r a l se n se o f what i s r i g h t and wrong, th e s a n c tio n l i e s in th e f e a r o f th e g e n e r a l d is a p p ro b a tio n w hich fo llo w s I t s v i o l a t i o n and th e e x p e c ta tio n o f g e n e r a l ap p ro v al a s a rew ard f o r I t s observance*

In d iv in e law , w hich re v o lv e s

around a b e l i e f i n a suprem e B eing, th e s a n c tio n l i e s in th e e x p e c ta tio n o f c e r t a i n rew ards and punishm ents i n th e p re s e n t l i f e o r In th e l i f e t o come, w hich fo llo w th e observance or t h e v i o l a t i o n o f t h i s law .

In th e m u n ic ip a l o r p o s i t iv e law ,

th e s a n c tio n may l i e in th e t h r e a t o f punishm ent by th e c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s a s in c rim in a l law , o r i t may l i e i n th e a s s u r ­ ance t h a t he who v i o l a t e s th e law may have t o make compensa­ t i o n t o th e p e rso n who h as been In ju re d by such v i o l a t i o n as i n c i v i l law*

The s a n c tio n in i n t e r n a t i o n a l law l i e s in th e

1 W illiam Lawrence C la rk , E lem entary Law (Hew York: The American Law Book Company, 1909), p . 4*

3 f e a r in one n a tio n o f p u n itiv e m easu res, r e p r i s a l s , o r p e rh a p s a t t a c k from o th e r n a t i o n s . A ll fo u r g roups o f law s o f humane a c t io n have c o n tr ib ­ u te d t o b rin g ab o u t and p re s e rv e our system o f o r d e r ly human r e l a t i o n s —m o ral, d iv in e , m u n ic ip a l, and i n t e r n a t i o n a l law . However, i t i s o n ly w ith th e t h i r d o f t h i s groupy m u n ic ip a l la w , t h a t t h i s r e s e a r c h has been concerned and w i l l h e r e a f t e r be r e f e r r e d t o m erely a s "law .* Law, a s th e term i s used to d a y and w i l l be r e f e r r e d to in t h i s t h e s i s , i s d e fin e d by W illiam H. S pencer as "a body o f r u l e s , s a n c tio n e d by th e s t a t e , r e g u la ti n g th e conduct o f human b e in g s i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n w ith one a n o th e r and w ith th e 2

s ta te ."

The g e n e r a l te rm " s t a t e , " a s used in t h i s d e f i n i ­

t i o n , i s u sed t o d en o te any o rg a n iz e d p o l i t i c a l s o c ie ty and m ust be d is tin g u is h e d from th e use o f th e te rm in r e f e r r i n g t o th e U n ite d S ta te s o r one o f th e S ta te s o f th e u n io n . As S p e n c e rf s d e f i n i t i o n o f law s t a t e s , i t r e g u la te s th e conduct o f human b e in g s b u t does n o t make human c o n d u c t. On th e c o n tr a r y , human conduct makes law by c a u sin g f r i c t i o n and t o c o n tr o l and govern t h a t f r i c t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u ir e s a p la n and o r g a n iz a tio n .

E very d e f i n i t i o n o f "law " inco^9

th e id e a o r co n cep t o f a r u l e , t h a t i s , o r d e r ly a c t i o n .

2

W illiam Homer S p en cer, A Textbook o f Law and B u sin e ss (Hew Y ork: M cGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , 1938},

pTTrT-

4

A ccording t o B la c k st o n e »s d e f i n i t i o n , "Law i s a r u l e o f c i v i l conduct p r e s c r ib e d by th e supreme power in a s t a t e , 1 3 commanding what i s r i g h t and p r o h i b i t i n g what i s w rong." S in c e th e te rm " r u le " p la y s such an im p o rta n t p a r t in th e d e f i n i t i o n o f law , B lack sto n e goes t o c o n s id e r a b le le n g th t o d e lim it th e meaning o f th e term *

rirs t,

i t i s to be

d is tin g u is h e d from a t r a n s i e n t , sudden o rd e r from a s u p e r io r , and d ir e c te d t o o r c o n c ern in g a p a r t i c u l a r p e rs o n ; a r u l e i s so m eth in g p erm an en t, u n ifo rm , and u n i v e r s a l ,

seco n d , a r u l e

i s t o be d is tin g u is h e d from a d v ic e o r c o u n s e l, which we a r e a t l i b e r t y t o fo llo w o r r e j e c t a s we see p ro p e r and o f which we a r e f r e e t o judge o f th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o r u n re a so n a b le n e ss o f th e th in g a d v is e d ; a r u le i s som ething w hich does n o t depend upon th e a p p ro b a tio n o f th e p e rso n s concerned b u t upon th e w i l l o f th e maker*

T h ird , a r u l e i s t o be d i s ­

tin g u is h e d from a compact o r an ag reem en t; th e l a t t e r i s a prom ise p ro c e e d in g from th e p e rso n co n cern ed , w hereas a r u l e p ro c e e d s from i t s a u th o r and i s d ir e c te d t o th e p e rso n s 4 a ffe c te d . There a r e many r u l e s c o n t r o l li n g human conduct w hich have no l e g a l s ig n if ic a n c e and a r e ex clu d ed from any co n o id -

^ B la c k s t one *s C om m entaries, Tol* 1 , p p . 44-46, c itd d by W illiam Lawrence C la rk , o p . c l t . , p . 7. * Loc. c i t .

5

© ra tio n o f law , such a s r u l e s w ith r e s p e c t t o m anners and s o c i a l c o n d u c t.

D illa v o u and Howard compare human r e l a t i o n s

a s th e y a r e c o n tr o lle d by law w ith th e r u l e s g o v ern in g th e p la y in g o f a game : In o rd e r t o p r o d u c e th e r e s u l t d e s ir e d in p la y in g a game, c e r t a i n r u l e s must be fo llo w e d . A d e p a rtu re from any o f th e s e r u l e s d e f e a ts th e purpose o f th e game. W ith ev e ry b re a c h o f th e s e r u l e s o f c o n t r o l , th e r e fo llo w s some r e s u l t d e tr im e n ta l t o a l l th e p a r t i c i p a n t s and t o th e v i o l a t o r o f th e r u l e . To th e v i o l a t o r o f th e r u l e , i t i s th e condem nation of. th e o th e r p l a y e r s . To th e o th e r p l a y e r s , i t i s th e l o s s o f th e d e s ir e d r e s u l t . In o rg a n iz e d s o c i e ty a b re a c h o f th e r u l e s w hich form th e law p ro d u ces a l i k e r e s u l t . Law, in th e sen se t h a t i t i s a body o f r u l e s r e g u la ti n g human c o n d u c t, i s n o t th e r e s u l t o f a d e l i b e r a te and th o u g h to u t p la n , b u t r a t h e r th e r e s u l t o f a p ro c e s s o f e v o lu tio n . Law b e g in s w ith community l i f e and from h e re custom s o r i g i n a t e . When th e s e custom s become s t a b i l i z e d t o th e e x te n t t h a t each member o f s o c i e t y can assume t h a t e v e ry o th e r member o f s o c ie ty w i l l r e s p e c t and a c t i n c o n fo rm ity w ith them , i t may be s a id t h a t r u l e s o f conduct a r e re c o g n iz e d by th e community in g e n e r a l; and when th e s e r u l e s o f conduct f in d e x p re s s io n i n l e g i s l a t i v e en actm en ts o r j u d i c i a l d e c is io n s th e "law * i s made.

E s s e l R. D illa v o u and C h a rle s &. Howard, P r i n c i p l e s o f B u sin e ss Law (seco n d r e v is e d e d i t i o n ; Hew Y ork: p r e n t i c e B £l±,' I n c . , I M o ) , p . 1 . 6 I b i d . , p p . 1 -2 .

6

A. good example o f th e e v o lu tio n o f law can he found i n th e d e c is io n s and l e g i s l a t i v e en actm ents grow ing o u t o f th e developm ent o f a v i a t i o n .

I t had been an o ld l e g a l

p r i n c i p l e , b ased upon c e n tu r ie s o f d e c is io n s and l e g i s l a t i o n , t h a t t o th e owner o f th e lan d on th e s u rfa c e b elo n g ed th e s o i l and e v e ry th in g below t o th e c e n te r o f th e e a r t h , a l s o t o th e a i r space above h i s la n d i n t o i n f i n i t y * law b e f o re th e days o f a v i a t i o n .

T hat was a wholesome

I t protected th e land-ow ner

from h av in g o th e r p e rso n s e x t r a c t th e o i l o r m in e ra ls from b e n e a th h i s la n d ; i t a l s o p r o te c te d him from h i s n e ig h b o r 's o v er-h a n g in g t r e e s o r p r o j e c ti n g e a v e s , and from, o th e r s s h o o tin g a c ro s s h i s la n d .

L ik e w ise , i t made him se c u re

a g a in s t th e i n t r u s i o n o f o ffe n s iv e smoke, u n p le a s a n t o d o rs, d is t u r b i n g n o is e s and o th e r n u is a n c e s .

Any v i o l a t i o n o f t h i s 1

l e g a l p r i n c i p l e o f ow nership c o n s ti t u te d t r e s p a s s , and th e law p ro v id e d r e d r e s s t o th e owner in th e form o f an in ju n c tio n , o r dam ages, and b o th in some c a s e s . Then a v i a t i o n came a lo n g t o c h a lle n g e t h i s a n c ie n t p r i n c i p l e c o f law t h a t t h e s u rfa c e owner was th e owner o f th e a i r sp ace above i n t o i n f i n i t y *

To have upheld t h i s lo n g s

e s t a b l i s h e d law would have made p ro g re s s in a v ia tio n p r a c ­ t i c a l l y im p o s s ib le .

An owner o f a la r g e e s t a t e in M assachu­

s e t t s b ro u g h t what commonly i s c a lle d a t e s t c a s e .

He sought

t o g e t an in ju n c t io n a g a in s t a n e a rb y a i r p o r t t o p re v e n t i t s p la n e s from f l y i n g o v e r h i s e s t a t e .

The c o u rt h e ld , in

7

a d e c is io n fa v o ra b le t o th e d e fe n d in g a v i a t io n company t h a t : The c o u rt ta k a s j u d i c i a l n o tic e o f f a c t s o f common knowledge co n c ern in g n a v ig a tio n o f th e a i r , m th e p r e s e n t s t a t e o f th e a r t i t i s im p o ssib le t o c o n fin e f l i g h t t o th e space o v e r e x i s t i n g ways#

:

I n a more r e c e n t c a s e , F .R . and Nannie Hinman, o f R urhank, C a l i f o r n i a , u n s u c c e s s f u lly so u g h t damages from th e U n ite d A ir L in e s T ra n sp o rt Company and th e P a c i f i c A ir T ra n s p o rt Company on th e ground t h a t th e d efen d an ts* p la n e s were t r e s p a s s i n g by f l y i n g over t h e i r Burbank p r o p e r ty .

In

w r itin g th e o p in io n f o r th e U. S . C ir c u it Court o f A p p eals, J u s t i c e B e rt B. Haney s t a t e d , “The sk y has no d e f i n i t e l o c a t i o n and th e a i r , l i k e th e s e a , b y i t s n a tu re i s in c a p a b le S o f p r i v a t e o w n e rsh ip .** The p r i n c i p l e s o f law , a s l a i d down by S i r W illiam B la c k s t o n e, do n o t become s t a l e o r o b s o le te w ith a g e .

M ethods,

ways and m eans, o f a p p ly in g th e law change w ith th e custom s o f s u c c e s s iv e g e n e r a tio n s , and w ith th e developm ent o f new in v e n tio n s , b u t th e fu n d am en tal p r i n c i p l e s a r e a s b in d in g , in p e r p e t u i t y , a s th e Ten Commandments.

Bean Leon G reen, o f th e Law S chool

o f N o rth w e ste rn U n iv e r s ity , c o n t r a s ts th e a p p l ic a t i o n o f th e law in B la c k s to n e 's age w ith modem tim e s b y a s k in g , “What does he ^B lackstonel know ab o u t zo n in g , o r s u b d iv is io n s , o r

7 S m ith v . N. E. A i r c r a f t Company, 170 N, 1 . 585. 8 A s s o c ia te d P re s s d is p a tc h , A rizona R epublic (Phoenix) J u ly 21, 1956.

8 9 s t r e e t s and a s s e s s m e n ts , o r t r a f f i c s i g n a l s , o r p ro h ib itio n ? * 1 The v a lu e o f law in p ro m o tin g human w e lfa re i s w e ll e x p re s s e d i n th e w ords o f F e l i x S . Cohens We have th e r i g h t t o c o n c lu d e , th e n , t h a t th e in s tr u m e n ta l v a lu e o f law i s sim p ly i t s v a lu e in p rom oting th e good l i f e o f th o s e whom i t a f f e c t s , and t h a t any law o r o th e r elem ent o f th e l e g a l o rd e r w hich h a s e f f e c t s upon human l i f e can be Judged t o be good o r bad in th e l i g h t o f th o s e e f f e c t s . . . „ C o n seq u en tly , th e t o t a l v a lu a tio n o f law r e s o lv e s i t s e l f i n t o a judgm ent upon th e l i f e o f human b e in g s i n so f a r a s i t i s in v o lv e d i n th e law i t s e l f o r i s a f f e c te d by la w .i 0 Laws, how ever, a r e n o t s e l f - e x e c u t i n g .

When a l e g a l

c o n tro v e rs y a r i s e s betw een man and man, o r betw een th e s t a t e and i t s s u b j e c t s , i f i t i s im p o ssib le f o r them t o s e t t l e i t i n a p e a c e a b le manner by t h e i r own e f f o r t s , th e a id o f th e c o u r ts must be invoiced.

T hus, w ith th e a id o f th e j u d i c i a l

a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s t i c e , law r e p la c e s v io le n c e .

Any one

o r a l l o f t h e p a r t i e s t o a l e g a l c o n tro v e rs y may, a s a m a tte r o f r i g h t , c a l l upon th e t r i b u n a l s o f th e s t a t e t o s e t t l e t h e i r d isag reem en t*

The c o u r t, t h e r e f o r e , becomes th e m ost im p o rt­

a n t p a r t o f th e la w -e n fo rc in g m ach in ery o f th e s t a t e .

The

te rm w hich i s a p p lie d t o t h a t p a r t o f la w enforcem ent w hich i s c a r r i e d o u t b y th e c o u r ts i s th e " j u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s t i c e . 1* How t o im prove i t i s th e s u b je c t o f t h i s

9 Leon G reen, c i t e d by u n sig n ed a r t i c l e , “Would De­ th ro n e B la c k s t one, n The Summons, I I (S p rin g , 1930}, 18. F e l i x S . Cohen, E t h i c a l System s and L eg al I d e a ls (F alco n P r e s s —no a d d re s s g iv e n — c .d . 1933}, p . 4 2 .

10

re se arc h - and s tu d y .

Inasm ucli a s th e c o u r t 's o r d e r s , d e c r e e s ,

and d e c is io n s a re c a r r ie d o u t, by th e s t a t e , by fo rc e a g a in s t th o s e t o whom th e y a re d ir e c te d i f v o lu n ta r y su b m issio n i s n o t fo rth c o m in g , and s in c e m an's p r i v a t e p r o p e r ty , h i s l i b e r t y , and even h i s l i f e may be p la c e d a t th e d i s p o s i ti o n o f th e C o u r t's judgm ents and d e c r e e s , i t i s a p p a re n t t h a t no e f f o r t sh o u ld be sp a re d t o e le v a te o u r c o u r ts t o th e h ig h e s t d eg ree o f e f f i c i e n c y , h o n e s ty , and i n t e g r i t y humanly p o s s ib le o f a t t ainm ent * haw may be d iv id e d a ls o in t o (1) s u b s t a n t i t i v e law and {£} p ro c e d u ra l law .

The fo rm er d e f in e s o n e 's l e g a l r i g h t s ;

th e l a t t e r d e f in e s th e method o f h av in g o n e 's l e g a l r i g h t s e n f o rc e d .

P ro c e d u ra l law in c lu d e s c o u rt p r a c t i c e and p ro ­

ced u re and e v e ry th in g co nnected th e r e w ith . A n o th er te rm f r e q u e n tly used in t h i s d is c u s s io n i s " c o u r t ."

j u s t what i s a c o u rt?

Edward W. S pencer g iv e s t h i s

d e fin itio n : A c o u r t, o r c o u rt o f j u s t i c e , I s an agency o f th e s t a t e o r governm ent whose f u n c tio n i t i s t o h e a r and d e c id e c o n tr o v e r s ie s r e s p e c tin g l e g a l r i g h t s and in v a s io n s t h e r e o f , and t o g ra n t rem edies f o r th e p r o t e c ti o n o f r i g h t s and th e r e d r e s s o f wrongs by th e e n fo rc e m e n tso f i t s d e c i s i o n s . ^ I n th e U n ited S t a t e s t h e r e a re two s e p a r a te and d i s ­ t i n c t J u d i c i a l sy ste m s, th e f e d e r a l and th e s t a t e c o u r t'

11

Edward W. S p en ce r, A Manual o f Commercial law (F p u rth e d i t i o n ; In d ia n a p o lis :^ E h e B&bbS^M errill Company, 1 9 5 4 ), p . 17.

II sy ste m s.

These two sy s te m s , though th e y may have th e same

g e o g ra p h ic a l b o u n d a rie s o f J u r is d ic tio n * a r e e n t i r e l y in d e ­ p en d en t o f each o t h e r .

The h ie r a r c h y o f f e d e r a l c o u rts* b e ­

g in n in g w ith th e lo w e st c o u rts * i s f i r s t * th e t r i a l c o u r ts known a s d i s t r i c t c o u r t s ; th e second* th e c i r c u i t c o u rt o f a p p e a ls —an in te r m e d ia te re v ie w c o u r t; th e th ir d * th e Supreme C ourt o f th e U n ited S t a t e s ; w hich i s th e f i n a l c o u rt o f a p p e a l In f e d e r a l cases*

The Hew S tan d ard E n cy clo p ed ia has t h i s t o

s a y ab o u t th e Supreme C o u rt; The Supreme Comrt . . . i s unique and p ro b a b ly th e most i n f l u e n t i a l ju & ic ia l body in th e w orld* b ecause i t i s p ro b a b ly th e o n ly c o u rt t h a t d e r iv e s i t s power from a docum ent, and a t th e same tim e i s p ro v id e d w ith th e power t o d e c id e on th e meaning o f th e d is p u te d l e g a l q u e s tio n s a r i s i n g from t h a t docum ent.3*2 In A rizo n a th e lo w e st t r i b u n a l I s th e J u s t i c e o f th e *^ace C o u rt; i t i s n o t a c o u rt o f record* and c a se s w hich a re ap p e a le d from i t t o th e n e x t h ig h e s t c o u r t—th e s u p e r io r c o u r t, a r e t r i e d de^ novo, w hich means t h a t th e t r i a l i s an o r i g i n a l p ro c e e d in g J u s t as th o u g h no t r i a l had been h e ld i n th e c o u r t. The s u p e r io r c o u r ts a r e t h e c o r i g i n a l t r i a l c o u r ts f o r f e lo n ie s and f o r c i v i l c a se s in v o lv in g two hundred d o l l a r s o r m ore. There i s no in te rm e d ia te c o u rt o f a p p e a ls in A rizona*

A ppeals

p ro ceed d i r e c t l y from th e s u p e r io r c o u r ts t o th e supreme C ourt o f th e s t a t e .

12 u n sig n ed a r t i c l e , "C o u rts—U nited S t a t e s " , Hew S ta n d a rd E n cy c lo p e d ia , F ran k ,H . V iz e te ll y , e d i t o r (25 v o l s . Hew 5 o rk : Funk& W agnalls Company, c 1 9 5 1 ), V o l. V I I I , 4 8 .

12

The d i s t i n c t i o n betw een c o u r ts o f re c o rd and c o u rts n o t- o f - r e c o r d i s t h a t on an a p p e a l from th e l a t t e r , th e c o u rt w hich, in a lim ite d s e n s e , a c ts i n an a p p e ll a t e c a p a c ity , t r i e s th e is s u e s a s th o u gh no p re v io u s t r i a l had been h e ld . A ll th e ev id en ce must be re su b m itte d and th e judgment o r de­ c re e o f th e l a t t e r t r i a l c o u rt i s n o t a f f e c te d by th e judge ment o r d e c re e o f th e c o u rt n o t- o f - r e c o r d from whose judgment th e a p p e a l was ta k e n was ta k e n *

On an a p p e a l from a c o u rt

o f re c o rd t o an a p p e ll a t e c o u r t, th e t r i a l p ro c ed u re i s n o t r e p e a t e d ; no new ev id en ce may be su b m itte d and th e a p p e ll a t e c o u rt b a s e s i t s d e c is io n on what th e t r a n s c r i p t o f th e re c o rd from th e t r i a l c o u rt below shows *

The a p p e lla te c o u rt does

n o t go o u ts id e o f t h a t re c o rd t o a s c e r t a i n th e f a c t s , and th e d e c is io n o f t h e a p p e ll a t e c o u rt in t h i s l a t t e r in s ta n c e gen­ e r a l l y a f f ir m s o r r e v e r s e s th e d e c is io n o f th e t r i a l c o u rt o f re c o rd below*

The E n cy c lo p e d ia B r ita n n ic a g iv e s th e f o l ­

low ing d e f i n i t i o n o f a c o u rt o f r e c o r d , which i s quoted from S te p h e n 's B la c k s to n e ; A c o u rt o f re c o rd i s one w hereof th e a c ts and j u d i c i a l p ro c e e d in g s a r e e n r o lle d f o r a p e r p e tu a l memory and te s tim o n y , which r o l l s a re c a lle d th e re c o rd s o f th e c o u r t, and a r e o f such h ig h and su p e r em inent a u t h o r i t y t h a t t h e i r t r u t h i s n o t t o be c a lle d in q u e s tio n . F or i t i s a s e t t l e d r u l e and maxim t h a t n o th in g s h a l l be a v e rre d a g a in s t a r e c o r d , n o r s h a l l any p le a o r even p ro o f be a d m itte d t o th e c o n tr a r y . And i f th e e x is te n c e o f th e re c o rd s h a l l be d en ied i t s h a l l be t r i e d by n o th in g b u t i t s e l f ;

t h a t is * upon h a re in s p e c tio n w hether t h e r e he any su c h r e c o r d o r no; e l s e th e r e would he no end o f d i s p u t e s * 's F or some tim e th e Am erican c o u r ts have had t o w ith s ta n d s e v e re c r i t i c i s m s .

T here seem t o have h een c o n s id e ra b le d i s ­

s a t i s f a c t i o n he cause th e r e s u l t s o f l i t i g a t i o n o f te n do n o t c o in c id e w ith th e p o p u la r co n cep t o f ju s tic e *

T h is f a i l u r e may

he a t t r i b u t e d t o two p r i n c i p a l d e f i c i e n c i e s ; f i r s t * th e cum­ bersom e c o u r t p ro c e d u re w hich has caused t o do t h i n g s - a s s a i d i n th e v e r n a c u la r , ni n th e h ard w ay;" second* th e p e r s o n a l d e f i c i e n c i e s o f some o f th e ju d g es on th e bench* t h a t is* th e human e q u a tio n * The g r e a t e r p o r tio n o f t h i s stu d y and r e s e a r c h has been d e v o te d t o th e s e two p h ase s o f th e j u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s t i c e w ith a view t o f in d in g ways and means, f i r s t * t o p r e ­ v e n t, a s much a s p o s s i b l e , th e s e l e c ti o n o r appointm ent o f in co m p eten t ju d g e s; second* t o im prove j u d i c i a l p ro c e d u re m eaning a l l o f th e p ro c e d u re in v o lv e d b o th p r i o r t o th e t r i a l and d u rin g a t r i a l t o c a r r y a c a se th ro u g h d o u rt t o i t s f i n a l c o n c lu sio n *

The c r i t i c i s m o f th e " la w 's d e la y " h a s become

p ro v e rb ia l-

D elay f r e q u e n tly ca u ses a p a r t i a l d e n i a l o f

j u s t i c e and some tim e s a t o t a l d e n ia l* nr?

The s ta te m e n t t h a t

Unsigned a r t i c l e ," C o u r t * " The ah cy clO p ed ia B r i t a n n i c a , 1 1 th e d i t i o n (1 9 1 0 ), 29 v o ls.,~ Y o T 7 V II, 322.

14

J u s t i c e d elay ed i s J u s t i c e d e n ie d , though, o n ly a h a l f - t r u t h , i s n e v e r th e le s s a sh a rp c r i t i c i s m o f our J u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a ­ t i o n o f J u s tic e * Much o f th e " la w 's d e la y ” h a s been due t o cumbersome and o b s o le te c o u rt p ro ced u re*

T his h as been im proved g r e a t ­

l y f o r A riz o n ia n s by th e a d o p tio n o f new r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re 14 f o r b o th th e f e d e r a l and th e A rizona s t a t e c o u rts* But many o f t h e o th e r s t a t e s a r e s t i l l s tr u g g lin g alo n g w ith t h e i r o ld w orn-out code p ro c e d u re s . A nother re a s o n f o r th e "la w 1s d e la y ” has been th e o v e r­ crowded c o u rt c a le n d a r s .

T h is was e s p e c i a l l y t r u e d u rin g th e

day s o f p r o h i b i t io n when th e p r o s e c u tio n o f l i q u o r law v io ­ l a t o r s was crow ding o u t im p o rta n t c i v i l c a s e s , a s w e ll a s crim ­ i n a l c a s e s , in n e a r ly e v e ry J u r i s d i c t i o n .

The whole f e d e r a l

J u d i c i a l system was b o g ging down w ith p r o h i b i t io n c a s e s . The fo llo w in g i s quoted from a memorandum o f James E* J o n e s , D ir e c to r o f P r o h ib itio n ,, T re a su ry D epartm ent, B ureau o f I n t e r n a l Revenue, d a te d A p r il 20, 1926: D uring th e 12 months b e g in n in g Jan u a ry 1, 1925, and ending December 31, 1925, th e r e w ere commenced i n th e c F e d e r a l c o u r ts 47,898 c a s e s ; 58,777 i n d i v id u a l p ro s e c u tio n s were te r m in a te d , and 42,189 i n d i v id u a l c o n v ic tio n s were secu red* We have ho re c o rd o f p r o h i b i t io n c a se s p ro s e c u te d in s t a t e c o u rts *

guprau C h ap ter T i l , p p . 136 e t s e q . ^ H earin g s b e f o re th e Subcom m ittee o f th e Committee on th e J u d ic ia r y , U n ited S t a t e s S e n a te , S ix ty - n in th C ongress, F i r s t S e s s io n (2 v o l s . W ashington: Grovernment P r i n t in g I f f i c e , 1926}, v o l . I I , p . 1450.

15 An a n a ly s is o f th e s e f i g u r e s r e v e a l s t h a t th e y r e p r e ­ s e n t an av erag e f o r th e f e d e r a l c o u r ts in each o f th e f o r t y e ig h t s t a t e s o f a p p ro x im a te ly 1,000 new c a s e s b ro u g h t in t o c o u rt and more th a n 1 ,2 0 0 c a s e s han d led d u rin g th e y e a r 1925V The c o n g e s tio n in th e F e d e ra l D i s t r i c t C ourt f o r th e S o u th ern D i s t r i c t o f New York was shown by th e te s tim o n y o f Fmory R. B uckner, U n ited S t a t e s A tto rn e y f o r t h a t d i s t r i c t , when he t e s t i f i e d b e f o re th e Subcom m ittee o f th e Committee on th e J u d ic ia y y , U n ite d S t a t e s S enate*

jar# Buckner t e s t i f i e d t h a t ,

vidien he to o k o f f i c e on March 2, 1925, t h e r e w ere 5,0 0 0 proB h i b i t i o n c a s e s p en d in g in h i s o f f i c e ; t h a t a t t h a t tim e t h e r e a l s o were p en d in g in th e f e d e r a l c o u rts o f t h a t d i s t r i c t from 500 t o 400 s o - c a l le d p a d lo c k c a se s in w hich th e Government so u g h t t o o b ta in in ju n c tio n s t o a b o lis h n u is a n c e s — speak­ e a s ie s .

Mr. Buckner t e s t i f i e d f u r t h e r :

Now th e tr o u b le w ith t h a t i s t h a t th e f i l i n g o f th o s e p a d lo c k c a s e s was a b s o lu te ly m e a n in g le s s , b ec au se t h e e q u ity c a le n d a r in my d i s t r i c t was some two y e a rs b e h in d . . . . th e y were a b s o l u te l y mean­ i n g l e s s b ecau se p p a d lo c k c a s e , an e q u ity case t o a b a te a n u is a n c e , o f th e v e ry e sse n c e must be re a s o n ­ a b ly contem poraneous w ith th e ev id en ce showing th e n u is a n c e j and th e s e c a s e s on my p a d lo c k c a le n d a r w ere one, tw o, t h r e e , and fo u r y e a rs o ld w ith o u t t r i a l . . . . th e e x is te n c e o f t h a t p a d lo c k c a le n d a r i n my o f f i c e was a f u r t h e r w aste o f tim e from a n * o f f i c e w hich a lr e a d y could n o t do h a l f i t s w ork. D Two f a c t o r s have c o n trib u te d much t o e lim in a te th e

16

H earin g s b e f o re th e Subcomm ittee . . . p p . 100-102.

IS c o n g e ste d c o u rt c a le n d a r s ; f i r s t , th e r e p e a l o f P r o b itio n ; second r th e new r u l e s o f c o u rt p ro c ed u re w hich a r e re d u c in g th e number o f c a s e s t h a t p ro c e e d a s f a r a s t r i a l and by sp ee d in g up th e c a se s t h a t a c t u a l l y g e t i n t o c o u r t f o r t r i a l . A nother c r i t i c i s m f r e q u e n tly d i r e c te d a t our c o u r ts i s t h a t th e y w o rsh ip p re c e d e n t to o much,

There i s a d i s t i n c t i o n

betw een th e p re c e d e n ts b ased on p r i o r d e c is io n s o f th e same c o u r t o r c o u r ts in th e same j u r i s d i c t i o n a s d is tin g u is h e d from p re c e d e n ts b aaed on th e e c o n s id e r a tio n g iv en by a c o u rt o f one j u r i s d i c t i o n t o th e d e c is io n s o f c o u r ts o f o th e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . The fo rm er i s known a s th e d o c tr in e o f s t a r e d e c i s i s —fo llo w in g p re v io u s d e c is io n s .

In o rd e r t o overcome th e fo rc e o f t h i s doc­

t r i n e , a c o u rt must r e v e r s e i t s e l f *

I t fo llo w s , re a s o n a b ly ,

t h a t when a c o u rt h as made a d e c is io n In a c e r t a i n l e g a l s i t u a ­ t i o n , i f th e i d e n t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s u b s e q u e n tly i s p re s e n te d t o th e same c o u r t i n a n o th e r c a s e , th e c o u r t sh o u ld sa y in e f f e c t t h a t th e q u e s tio n o f law in v o lv e d i n t h i s c a se h as been a lr e a d y d e c id e d b y t h i s c o u rt*

F or th e c o u rt t o make a d i f f e r e n t d e c i­

s io n would be an a d m issio n b y th e c o u r t t h a t i t s d e c is io n in th e f i r s t case on t h a t p o in t o f law had been e rro n e o u s .

If It

I s d i f f i c u l t t o g e t an o rd in a r y p e rso n t o adm it an e rro n e o u s d e c is io n , i t fo llo w s t h a t a c o u r t n a t u r a l l y would be a l l th e more

17

S u p ra , C h ap ter ¥11, pp* 136 e t seq*

17 h e s i t a n t t o adm it i t s e r r o r s , e s p e c i a l l y i f i t i s a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls , b ecau se i t s d e c is io n s a re p u b lis h e d in th e case r e ­ p o r t s , th u s becom ing a perm anent re c o rd o f th e c o u rt r s a d m is s io n s o f i t s p re v io u s m istak es* The d e c is io n s o f c o u r ts o f o th e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have f a r l e s s w eig h t a s p re c e d e n t th a n th e p re v io u s d e c is io n s o f t h e same c o u rt*

In o th e r w ords, s t a r e d e c i s i s i s s tr o n g e r

th a n o rd in a ry p re c e d e n t.

J u s t i c e C ardoza w ro te a v e ry caus­

t i c c r i t i c i s m o f th e judge who has become a s la v e t o lo g ic and p re c e d e n t: Judges mardh a t tim e s t o p i t i l e s s c o n c lu s io n s u n d er th e p ro d o f a re m o rs e le s s lo g ic w hich i s sup­ p o sed t o le a v e them no a l t e r n a t i v e . They d e p lo re th e s a c r i f i c i a l r i t e . They p erfo rm i t , none th e l e s s , w ith a v e r te d g a z e , convinced a s th e y plunge th e k n ife t h a t th e y obey th e b id d in g o f t h e i r o f f i c e . The v i c ­ tim i s o f f e r e d up t o th e gods o f ju ris p ru d e n c e on th e a l t a r o f r e g u l a r i t y . 15 A nother c r i t i c i s m o f th e f a i l u r e o f j u s t i c e w hich som etim es i s h e a rd i s t h a t d e c is io n s f r e q u e n tly a re made on t e c h i c a l i t i e s o f p ro c e d u re r a t h e r th a n on th e m e r its o f th e case.

Under th e new r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re , t h e s e m is c a rr ia g e s

o f j u s t i c e sh o u ld o c c u r f a r l e s s f r e q u e n tl y .

The v e ry p u r­

p o se o f th e new r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re , a s d e fin e d by th e a c t o f t h e A rizona L e g i s l a t u r e , i s t o " r e g u la te p le a d in g , p r a c t ic e ~.iii

------

- i . . . .-- ------------------------- -

is Benjam in N athan C ardoza, c it e d by Jo sep h P e r c iv a l B o lla rd i n nMr. J u s t i c e C a rd o z a .” D ocket, IT .{ S p rin g , 19 3 4 ), 3677, r e p r i n t o f a r t i c l e from American M ercury, F e b ru a ry , 1934.

18

and p ro c e d u re * . * f o r th e purpose o f sim p lify in g : th e same and o f p rom oting th e sp eed y d e te rm in a tio n o f l i t i g a t i o n upon i t s m e rits .* * ^ P a u l B ellam y, e d i t o r o f The C lev elan d P l a i n D e a le r, i n a sp eech t o th e A m erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n a t i t s a n n u a l m eetin g h e ld in C le v e la n d , enum erated some o f th e av e rag e laym en’s c r i t i c i s m s o f t h e c o u rt and th e l e g a l p r o f e s s io n . "The p u b lic th in k s you ta k e a month t o do a job w hich could be f i n i s h e d , w ith re a s o n a b le d i lig e n c e , in a d a y ,” s a id Mr. B ellam y, who added t h a t th e p u b lic e x p e c ts la w y e rs "n o t o n ly f a p r a c t i c e law b u t t o improve l a w . " v

One o f th e s tr o n g e s t

p u b lic c r i t i c i s m s , a c c o rd in g t o Mr. B ellam y, i s : The p u b lic t h in k s t h a t th e c o u r t and th e la w y e rs c o o p e ra te t o make a game, o r a t l e a s t a t e s t o f w i t s , o u t o f w hat sh o u ld be a solem n p ro c e s s t o a rriv e a t ju s tic e . Few p e o p le w i l l deny t h a t American j u s t i c e needed im­ pro v em en t; i n f a c t , n e a r l y a l l ju d g es and law y e rs a re in agreem ent w ith t h a t p r o p o s itio n ; t h e r e f o r e , t h i s s tu d y has p ro c e e d e d from th e re c o g n iz e d need f o r v improvement a s th e b a s i c p rem ise t o a s e a r c h f o r th e means o f o b ta in in g j u d i c i a l

C h ap ter 8 , S en ate B i l l Ho* 26, 1959 S e ssio n Laws o f A riz o n a, F o u rte e n th L e g is l a t u r e , R eg u lar S e ssio n . .. P a u l B ellam y, in h i s sp e e c h t o th e Am erican Bar A s s o c ia tio n , a t C le v e la n d , a s r e p o tte d in The C lev elan d P l a i n D e a le r, J u ly 25, 1938. P a u l B ellam y, l a c , c i t .

19 j u s t i c e a s n e a r ly p e r f e c t a s humanly p o s s ib le f o r i t s o b je c ­ tiv e .

S in c e t h e r e i s no s u b s t i t u t e f o r th e human elem ent i n

th e j u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s t i c e , th e f i r s t c o n s id e r a ­ t i o n i s t o im prove th e p e rs o n n e l on th e b en ch . I n sp e a k in g o f t h e c a li b r e o f some ju d g e s, Jo sep h P e r c i v a l P o lla r d makes th e s e o b s e r v a tio n s : They (jsome judges^ te n d , m oreover, t o w r ite t h e i r a r c h a ic view s in a s t u f f y and heavy s t y l e , n o t c l e a r even t o a p r o f e s s io n w e ll i n i t i a t e d in a b ra c a d a b ra , and making a n in e x a c t s c ie n c e seem s t i l l more i n ­ t a n g i b l e . Thus d a rk n e ss r e i g n s , and th e heavy hand o f th e p a s t , f a l l s upon th e laymen who a r e g ro p in g f o r l i g h t and p r o g r e s s .* * The second m ost im p o rta n t s te p i n th e improvement o f th e j u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s t i c e , a f t e r h av in g im proved th e q u a l i t y o f th e Judges on th e bench, i s t o improve j u d i ­ c i a l p ro c ed u re*

The s tu d y and r e s e a r c h made f o r t h i s t h e s i s

were n o t concerned w ith th e problem o f im proving th e s u b s ta n ­ t i v e law —t h a t would be a problem f o r r e s e a r c h in im proving th e l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c tio n s o f our Government—b u t r a t h e r w ith im proving p ro c e d u ra l law . The s t u d i e s made o f court, p ro c e d u re , as h e r e in p r e ­ s e n te d , show th e need f o r im proving i t .

However, what a r e th e

b e s t means o f a d a p tin g our j u d i c i a l m achinery t o th e changing,

©2,

Jo sep h P e r c i v a l P o l l a r d , "m r. J u s t i c e C a rd o z a .” D ocket, IV .( S p rin g , 1 9 3 4 ), 3676, r e p r i n t o f an a r t i c l e from A m erican,M ercury. F e b ru a ry , 1934.

20

econom ic, p o l i t i c a l , and s o c i a l re q u ire m e n ts o f th e p r e s e n t tim e ?

W ith th e s e problem s c r y in g f o r s o l u t io n , t o what agency

s h a l l we lo o k f o r sh ap in g th e J u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f Ju s­ t i c e t o o ur p r e s e n t- d a y n eed s? t o th e l e g i s l a t u r e .

O bviously, we sh o u ld n o t lo o k

The u n s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s o b ta in e d from

th e codes o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re , w hich have been i n f l i c t e d on th e c o u r ts by th e l e g i s l a t u r e s s in c e David D udley F ie ld s t a r t e d th e movement f o r th e s o - c a l le d co d eo p lead in g s in 23 1848, d i s q u a l i f y th e l e g i s l a t u r e f o r su ch a t a s k . F o r may we lo o k w ith eq u a n im ity on th e s u g g e s tio n o f some p e rso n s t h a t t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y m ight be tu rn e d o v er t o th e e x e c u tiv e B ranch o f th e Governm ent; th e re a s o n s a r e o b v io u s.

These

problem s must be so lv e d by th e c o o p e ra tiv e e f f o r t s o f th e J u d ic ia r y and th e l e g a l p r o f e s s io n , a s s i s t e d by s o c i o l o g i s t s , p s y c h o lo g is ts , s c i e n t i s t s , t e a c h e r s , w e lfa re -w o rk e rs , b u s i­ nessm en, and c iv ic -m in d e d p e o p le and o r g a n iz a tio n s in g e n e r a l. Among th e o r g a n iz a tio n s and a g e n c ie s w hich have b een s tu d y in g th e problem o f im proving th e J u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s t i c e , th e A m erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n s ta n d s out a s f i r s t and fo re m o s t.

I t h as been a c tiv e f o r more th a n t h i r t y y e a rs

in th e movement t o improve th e e J u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s tic e .

C h a rle s Grove H aines c i t e s a r e p o r t o f a s p e c ia l

25 p p . 148 -4 9 .

Jo sep h P e r c iv a l P o lla r d , "MT. J u s t i c e C ard o z a,”

21

com m ittee o f th e A m erican Bar A s s o c ia tio n , d a te d 1909, " to s u g g e s t rem ed ies and fo rm u la te p ro p o sed law s t o p re v e n t d e la y 2A and u n n e c e s s a ry c o s t In l i t i g a t i o n * " That was t h i r t y - t w o y e a r s ago*

The Am erican Bar A s s o c ia tio n p ro b a b ly h as con­

d u c te d th e lo n g e s t s u s ta in e d e f f o r t in t h i s f i e l d o f endeavor* I t s m onthly p u b l i c a t i o n , The A m erican Bar A s s o c ia tio n J o u r n a l, h a s c o n tr ib u te d c o n s id e r a b le m a t e r i a l t o t h i s s tu d y and r e ­ se a rc h . The A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , t o o , h a s b e e n v e ry a c t i v e i n t h i s movement s in c e 1917*

I t has been p u b lis h in g

a b i-m o n th ly magsUfcine d ev o ted e n t i r e l y t o t h a t cause*

The

f i r s t number o f th e J o u r n a l o f th e American j u d i c a t u r e S o c ie ty ap p e a re d I n J u n e , 1917.

The p u rp o se o f th e s o c i e t y

I s s t a t e d on th e co v er o f th e f i r s t i s s u e : The American J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty e x i s t s b ec au se o f th e c o n v ic tio n o f i t s members t h a t e a r n e s t and i n t e n ­ s iv e e f f o r t w i l l a v a i l t o make th e a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s t i c e i n A m erican C o u rts more e f f e c t i v e and more econom ical* i t s work i s e d u c a tio n a l. The S o c ie ty c o o p e ra te s w ith a l l o th e r a g e n c ie s a c tiv e i n th e f i e l d . 25 The b i-m o n th ly J o u r n a l o f th e S o c ie ty p ro b a b ly has been 24 • C h a rle s Grove H ain es,"T h e G eneral S tr u c tu r e o f C ourt O rg a n iz a tio n ." The A n n a ls. o f th e American Academy o f p o l i t i c a l and S o c ia l S c ie n c e , C IX 7Il“lM ay, 1933), T H 25 U nsigned d e c la r a t i o n , o u ts id e f r o n t c o v e r, J o u rn a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , I ( Ju n e, 1917) .

22

th e g r e a t e s t s in g le so u rc e o f p r i n t e d d a ta f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h . E very s t a t e h a s i t s s t a t e b a r a s s o c i a ti o n , and in many p la c e s co u n ty b a r a s s o c i a ti o n s e x i s t . l o c a l b a r a s s o c i a t i o n s a r e common.

In th e l a r g e r c i t i e s

A l l o f th e s e have co o p er­

a te d more o r l e s s w ith th e Am erican Bar A s s o c ia tio n ; i n f a c t , t h e s e s t a t e , c o u n ty , and l o c a l o r g a n iz a tio n s have been th e medium th ro u g h w hich th e American Bar A s s o c ia tio n has c a r r i e d on much o f I t s r e s e a r c h and a c t i v i t i e s .

Many o f th e s e s t a t e

and l o c a l o r g a n iz a tio n s a ls o have r e g u la r p u b l i c a t i o n s , such a s th e S t a t e B ar J o u r n a l o f C a l i f o r n i a . The A m erican Academy o f P o l i t i c a l and S o c ia l S cience a l s o has c o n tr ib u te d t o th e movement d u rin g th e p a s t te n y e a rs b y d e v o tin g two Is s u e s of The A nnals e x c lu s iv e ly to im p roving th e J u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s t i c e .

The most 26 r e c e n t o f th e s e i s s u e s was th e S eptem ber, 1939, is s u e * 27 The f i r s t 6 f th e s e I s s u e s ap p eared in May, 1933. B oth th e S e n a te and th e House o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s o f th e U n ited S ta te s - C ongress have conducted e x te n s iv e h e a rin g s on m a tte r s co n n ected w ith th e J u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s t i c e i n th e f e d e r a l c o u rts *

Voluminous r e p o r t s o f th e s e

26 " F r o n t i e r s o f L e g a l Aid W ork," The A nnals o f th e Am erican Academy o f P o l i t i c a l and S o c ia l S c ie n c e , CCV (Sep­ tem b er, 1939 5 , I-X4Q* . .. ~ 27 ^ ^ m in is tr a tio n o f j u s t i c e , " o p. c i t *, CLXVTI (May, 1933}, 1-220*

23 com m ittee h e a rin g s have been p u b lis h e d .

They have been th e

s o u rc e o f c o n s id e ra b le d a ta in th e i n v e s t i g a t o r 9s r e s e a r c h . The S en ate j u d i c i a r y Committee h as been more a c t i v e i n t h i s f i e l d th a n th e House Committee* h av in g p u b lis h e d volume a f t e r volume o f c o m m itte e -h e a rin g r e p o r t s d u rin g th e p a s t f i f t e e n y e a rs.

The o n ly r e p o r t o f a House Committee h e a rin g on th e

J u d ic ia r y d u rin g th e p a s t f i f t e e n y ea rs* t h a t co u ld be found by th e i n v e s t i g a t o r a t t h i s tim e , was th e r e p o r t on th e h e a r 2S in g s conducted i n 1950. S e v e ra l o r g a n iz a tio n s in th e v a rio u s f i e l d s o f sc ie n c e have c o o p e ra te d w ith th e l e g a l s o c i e t i e s i n an e f f o r t t o im­ p ro v e A m erican J u s t i c e .

S heldoh G lueck sp eak s o f c o o p e ra tio n

o f th e s c ie n c e g ro u p s w ith th e l e g a l o r g a n iz a tio n s : J u r i s t s have th e m se lv e s been i n s i s t i n g upon th e need o f a more in tim a te i n t e r p l a y betw een th e law and th e o th e r s o c i a l s c ie n c e s , b o th i n J u r i s t i c th in k in g and i n t h e p r a c t i c a l problem s o f th e admin­ i s t r a t i o n o f J u s t i c e . 29 The p ro c e d u re fo llo w ed in t h i s r e s e a r c h may be d iv id e d i n t o two main gro u p s o f a c t i v i t y :

f i r s t , r e s e a r c h conducted

by p e rs o n a l c o n ta c ts o f th e i n v e s t i g a t o r ; and seco n d , s e a rc h

H ea rin g s b e f o re th e Committee on th e J u d i c ia r y , House o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s , S e v e n t y - f ir s t C o n g ress, Second S e s s io n (W ashington: Government P r i n t i n g O ff ic e , 1930}, p p . 1-1526. 29 Sheldon G lueok, "The S o c ia l S c ie n c e s and S c i e n t i f i c Method i n th e A d m in is tra tio n of J u s t i c e . " The A nnals o f th e Am erican Academy o f P o l i t i c a l and S o c ia l Sexence, CtXVTI (May,

KgSTTToS:---------------------------------------------------------

—

24

o f tiie l i t e r a t u r e on th e s u b je c t and search, o f th e law case r e p o r ts * The i n v e s t i g a t o r i s a member o f th e b a r and has been a c t i v e l y engaged in th e p r a c t i c e o f law f o r th e l a s t t h i r t e e n y e a rs*

These a r e c irc u m sta n c e s w hich h a s a f f o r d e d many oppor

t u n i t i e s f o r p e r s o n a l c o n ta c ts and s tu d y w hich, o r d i n a r i l y , w ould n o t be a v a i l a b l e in a r e s e a r c h o f t h i s k in d .

i t is to

be remembered t h a t t h i s t h e s i s i a in th e f i e l d o f p o l i t i c a l s c ie n c e and n o t i n la w .

The common q u e s tio n n a ir e te c h n iq u e

was deemed t o be i n f e r i o r t o t h e m ethods em ployed. The p e r s o n a l c o n ta c ts and in te r v ie w s conducted by th e i n v e s t i g a t o r w ere n o t lim ite d t o s e c u r in g answ ers t o a fix e d s e t o f q u e s tio n s ; i n s t e a d , ea ch one in te rv ie w e d was g iv e n e v e ry o p p o r tu n ity f o r f u l l and f r e e d is c u s s io n o f h i s p e t t h e o r i e s , i d e a s , n o tio n s , and c o m p la in ts .

In fo rm a tio n th u s

g a th e r e d was o rg a n iz e d and c a ta lo g u e d i n f i l e s m a in ta in e d f o r t h a t p u rp o se o v e r a p e rio d o f e ig h t y e a r s .

P e rs o n a l

in te r v ie w s were had w ith Supreme C ourt j u s t i c e s , S u p e rio r C ourt Ju d g es, and J u s t i c e s o f th e P eace in A riz o n a , a l s o w ith J u s t i c e s o f th e C i r c u i t C ourt o f A ppeals and D i s t r i c t Judges o f th e F e d e ra l C ourts*

C ity and S u p e rio r c o u rt Judges o f

Los A n g e le s, a l s o , were in te rv ie w e d .

Among th e Judges i n t e r ­

viewed were th e H onorable F rank A* R u s s e ll, a Judge from A u s t r a l i a , and th e famous Judge Ben L in d se y , fo rm e rly o f

Denver and now o f Los A n g e le s.

P e rs o n a l in te r v ie w s a ls o were

had w ith la w y e rs, some o f whom were opposing c o u n s e l w h ile o t h e r s were c o -c o u n s e l w ith th e i n v e s t i g a t o r i n c o u r t t r i a l s , and s t i l l o th e r s w ere n o t concerned i n any l i t i g a t i o n in which t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r p a r t i c i p a t e d a s an a t t o r n e y ,

c l i e n t s and

l i t i g a n t s o f a l l h in d s w ere in te rv ie w e d and t h e i r r e a c t io n s n o te d .

C o n sid e ra b le in fo rm a tio n and d a ta were g a th e re d in

in te r v ie w s w ith c o u r t a t t a c h e s , s o c i o l o g i s t s , p s y c h o lo g is ts , t e a c h e r s , s tu d e n ts o f law and p o l i t i c a l s c ie n c e , and j u s t o r d in a r y b u s in e s s men and women. A c tu a l c o u rt p ro c e d u re , i n some o f w hich th e i n v e s t i ^ g a t o r p a r t i c i p a t e d , was s tu d ie d — f r e q u e n tly w h ile th e c o u rt was i n a c t i o n .

The f i l e s and r e c o rd s o f th e A rizo n a c o u r ts

w ere p e ru se d and c o n s id e r a b le v a lu a b le d a ta w ere e x tr a c te d th e re fro m . The a c t i v i t i e s o f v a r io u s l e g a l g ro u p s w ere p a r t i c i ­ p a te d i n , e s p e c i a l l y t h e a c t i v i t i e s d i r e c te d to w ard j u d i c i a l re fo rm .

These in c lu d e d th e a c t i v i t i e s o f th e A m erican Bar

A s s o c ia tio n , The Am erican j u d i c a t u r e s o c i e ty , th e A rizona S t a t e B ar A s s o c ia tio n , and th e M aricopa County B ar A sso c ia ­ t i o n a t P h o en ix , i n a l l of w hich th e i n v e s t i g a t o r bias been a member f o r many y e a r s .

The r e g u la r a s w e ll a s t h e s p e c ia l

r e p o r t s o f th e s e a g e n c ie s have been examined c a r e f u l l y as p a rt of th is re se a rc h .

26 F o r th e p u rp o se o f o b s e r v a tio n , c lo s e c o n ta c t was m a in ta in e d w ith th e developm ent and p ro g re s s o f e x p e rim e n ts, i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s , and movements lau n ch ed by v a r io u s a g e n c ie s su ch a s th e A riz o n a j u d i c i a l C o u n c il, s p e c ia l com m ittees o f th e A riz o n a Bar A s s o c ia tio n , and th e J u n io r Bar C onference o f th e A m erican Bar A s s o c ia tio n . C lose c o l l a b o r a ti o n was m a in ta in e d w ith c e r t a i n Members o f C ongress and U n ite d S t a t e s S e n a to r s , e s p e c i a l l y w ith S e n a to r H enry F . A s h u r s t, who was chairm an o f th e J u d i c i a r y Com m ittee, U n ite d S t a t e s S e n a te , u n t i l he was d e fe a te d f o r r e - e l e c t i o n t o th e S e n a te in th e l a s t e l e c t i o n , November, 1940.

Many v a lu a ­

b l e com m ittee r e p o r t s , r e p o r t s o f h e a r in g s , c o p ie s o f th e Con­ g r e s s i o n a l R eco rd , and m is c e lla n e o u s d a ta w ere r e c e iv e d from t h e s e men, and t h a t m a t e r i a l h a s been exam ined d u rin g th e p ro g re ss o f t h i s re s e a rc h . P am p h lets, new spaper c lip p in g s , c i r c u l a r s , c o p ie s o f s p e e c h e s , l e t t e r s , and m is c e lla n e o u s m a t e r i a l su c h a s Judges* cam paign c i r c u l a r s , c a r d s , and l e t t e r s , have been c o ll e c t e d and c a ta lo g u e d f o r e i g h t y e a r s . The u s u a l s e a r c h was made in th e l i b r a r i e s , in c lu d in g b o th g e n e r a l a s w e ll a s law l i b r a r i e s i n A riz o n a and i n i n s A n g ele s,

Many boohs and c u r r e n t p e r io d i c a l s in th e f i e l d o f

t h i s r e s e a r c h were a c q u ir e d and added t o th e i n v e s t i g a t o r s own p e r s o n a l l i b r a r y .

The i n v e s t i g a t i o n s in t h e law l i b r a r i e s

27

in c lu d e d th e u s u a l s e a r c h o f th e case r e p o r t s , th e d i g e s t s , th e c i t a t o r s , th e l e g a l e n c y c lo p e d ia s , Corpus j u r i s , and th e p r o f e s s io n a l l i t e r a t u r e in th e f i e l d o f law and c o u rt p ro ­ ced u re • T h is t h e s i s i s o rg a n iz e d in t o two main d iv is io n s *

The

f i r s t p a r t i s dem oted t o a stu d y o f im proving th e J u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s t i c e by im proving th e method o f s e l e c t i n g Ju d g es.

T his p a r t com p rises c h a p te rs two t o s i x i n c l u s i v e .

The f i r s t c o n s id e r a tio n i s th e n e c e s s i t y f o r an in d ep en d e n t J u d i c i a r y ; th e n fo llo w s an a n a ly s is o f th e p e r s o n a l q u a l i f i ­ c a tio n s a judge sh o u ld h a v e .

C h a p te rs f o u r , f i v e and s i x

a r e dev o ted t o c o n s id e r a tio n s o f m ethods o f g e t t i n g com petent men on th e b en ch , and o f r e t a i n i n g them a s lo n g as t h e y a r e com petent b u t r e t i r i n g them when th e y become su p e ra n n u a te d . The second m ain d i v i s io n i s d e d ic a te d t o th e p r o p o s i­ t i o n t h a t th e j u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s ti c e can and sh o u ld be im proved b y im proving c o u rt p ro c e d u re .

C hapter

se v e n i s a su rv e y o f th e p ro g re s s made in im proving th e r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re i n b o th th e f e d e r a l c o u r ts and th e c o u r ts o f A riz o n a .

The n e x t c h a p te r i s on th e q u e s tio n o f w hether

th e ru le -m a k in g power b e lo n g s t o th e c o u r ts o r t o th e l e g i s ­ l a t u r e s , and in th e n i n t h c h a p te r ev id en ce i s s u b m itte d t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e a c t s w hich t r a n s f e r th e ru le -m a k in g powers from th e l e g i s l a t u r e t o th e c o u r ts a re c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

C hapter

t e n c o n s id e r s th e q u e s tio n o f g iv in g th e c o u r ts w id er l a t i ­

ZQ

tu d e t o amend o r suspend f ix e d r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re when t h a t i s deemed n e c e s s a ry in th e i n t e r e s t s o f J u s t i c e ; in o th e r w o rd s, i t c o n s id e rs th e q u e s tio n o f making th e new r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re even more f l e x i b l e *

The n e x t two c h a p te r s —^eleven

and tw e lv e — c o n s id e r v a r io u s p h a se s o f th e p ro c ed u re b e f o r e f d u r in g , and a f t e r t r i a l . m a rie s and c o n c lu s io n s .

C h ap ter t h i r t e e n c o n ta in s th e sum­ '

PART I IMPROVING THE METHOD OF SELECTING JUDGES

CHAPTER I I AN INDEPENDENT TODICIART S in c e th e e f f i c a c y o f th e j u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s t i c e depends alm o st e n t i r e l y upon th e p e r s o n n e l o f ju d g es on th e b en ch , i t i s im p e ra tiv e t h a t men be s e c u re d who w i l l be so s i t u a t e d t h a t , in th e d is c h a rg e o f t h e i r d u t i e s , th e y w i l l be f r e e from a l l in f lu e n c e s which m ight i n t e r f e r e w ith t h e i r c o n s c ie n tio u s e f f o r t t o se e t h a t th e law I s p r o p e r ly a p p lie d and e n fo rc e d and t h a t im p a r tia l j u s t i c e i s g iv e n t o ev e ry o n e-

Our c o u r ts must be f r e e , n o t o n ly from a l l p e r s o n a l

and p r i v a t e in f lu e n c e s , such as f i n a n c i a l , r e l i g i o u s , and o th e r s o c i a l o r p o l i t i c a l c o n s id e r a tio n s , b u t a l s o from i n ­ f lu e n c e s and c o n t r o l on th e p a r t o f o th e r b ra n c h e s o f govern­ ment o r o f p u b lic o f f i c i a l s . The c o u r ts occupy an anom alous p o s i t i o n i n our demo?? c r a t l c form o f governm ent*

They a r e a p a r t o f th e g o vern­

m ent, y e t s ta n d a p a r t from i t b ecau se th e y have th e r e s p o n s i­ b i l i t y o f p r o t e c ti n g th e i n d iv id u a l c i t i z e n a g a in s t th e gov­ ernm ent when I t a tte m p ts t o en c ro a c h upon th e r i g h t s o f th e in d iv id u a l.

The c o u r ts a r e f u r t h e r in th e anom alous p o s i ­

t i o n o f b e in g a g e n ts o f th e p e o p le and y e t n o t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f th e p e o p le in th e same way t h a t o th e r b ra n c h e s o f th e gov­ ernm ent a r e .

T h is I s t r u e b ecau se th e c o u r ts f r e q u e n tly a r e

i n th e p o s i t i o n o f h av in g t o go c o n tr a r y t o th e w i l l o f th e

31

m a jo r ity t o p r o t e c t th e r i g h t s o f a m in o r ity , no m a tte r how s m a ll, whenever t h e i r r i g h t s a re th r e a te n e d o r i n t e r f e r e d w ith b y a m a jo r ity .

Sometimes th e c o u rts must s ta n d betw een th e

l e g i s l a t u r e and th e i n d iv id u a l even though th e l e g i s l a t u r e may r e p r e s e n t a l a r g e m a jo r ity o f th e p e o p le . One re a s o n why P r e s id e n t W illiam Howard T a ft v eto ed th e r e s o l u t i o n o f C ongress f o r th e a d m issio n o f A rizo n a and Hew Mexico a s s t a t e s , in 1911, was t h a t he fe a re d t h a t t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n s f a i l e d t o p r o te c t th e independence o f ju d g e s . In h i s m essage t o C ongress, he s a id In p a r t : The e x e c u tiv e and l e g i s l a t i v e b ra n c h e s a r e r e p r e ­ s e n t a t i v e s o f th e m a jo r ity o f th e p e o p le who e l e c t them in g u id in g th e co u rse o f th e governm ent w ith in th e l i m i t s o f th e c o n s t i t u t i o n . They must a c t f o r th e whole p e o p le , o f c o u rs e ; b u t th e y may p r o p e r ly fo llo w th e view s o f th e m a jo r ity w hich e le c te d them In r e ­ s p e c t t o th e g o v ern m en tal p o lic y b e s t ad ap ted t o s e c u re th e w e lfa re o f th e whole p e o p le . But th e ju d i ­ c i a l b ra n c h o f th e governm ent I s n o t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a m a jo r ity o f th e p e o p le In any such s e n s e , even I f t h e mode o f s e l e c t i n g judges i s b y p o p u la r e l e c ­ t i o n , . . . They a r e n o t p o p u la r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . A n o th er anom alous p o s i t i o n o f our c o u r ts , when com­ p a re d w ith th e o th e r two b ra n c h e s o f governm ent, i s t h a t th e c o u r ts , u n lik e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o r th e e x e c u tiv e , have b u t l i t t l e c a p a c ity t o a c t on t h e i r own I n i t i a t i v e ,

Maxey has

th e fo llo w in g t o s a y ab o u t t h i s p e c u l i a r i t y o f th e c o u rt f s

1 W. F . W illoughby, P r i n c i p l e s o f J u d i c i a l A d m in istra ­ t i o n (W ashington: The B rookings I n s t i t u t i o n , 19&9), p . 356, c i t i n g W illiam Howard T a ft .

3E p o s itio n : n not I t s L th e c o u r t f§J f u n c tio n i s / t o w a it u n t i l m a tte rs a re d u ly and p r o p e r ly b ro u g h t b e f o re i t on th e m otion o f a p r i v a t e in d i v id u a l o r an a p p r o p r ia te p u b lic o f f i ­ c i a l , and th e n t o h e a r , in q u ir e , weigh e v id e n c e , i n t e r ­ p r e t law , make d e c is io n s , and is s u e o r d e r s . But w ith th e is s u a n c e o f o r d e rs i t s fu n c tio n ' ends# Ho c o u rt has th e a u t h o r i t y o r th e power t o e x e c u te i t s own o r ­ d ers# In o th e r w ords, a c o u rt i s an u m p ire; i t does n o t o r i g i n a t e th e r u l e s og community l i f e n o r does i t c a r r y them o u t; i t m ere ly se e k s o u t th e f a c t s o f a g iv e n s t a t e o f a f f a i r s , d e c id e s how th e r u l e s a p p ly t o th e p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f f a c t s a s d eterm in ed by th e c o u r t, and o rd e rs done w hat i n i t s judgment i s n e c e s s a r y t o c a r r y o u t th e r u l e s in th e in s ta n c e a t h an d . Under o u r d o c tr in e o f th e s e p a r a tio n o f powers o f governm ent i n t o t h r e e e q u a l and c o - o r d in a te b ra n c h e s —th e e x e c u tiv e , th e l e g i s l a t i v e , and th e j u d i c i a l —-the l a t t e r i s som etim es p la c e d in th e p o s i t i o n o f a c tin g a s r e f e r e e in m a in ta in in g th e l i n e s o f s e p a r a tio n betw een th e s e th re e # The s i t u a t i o n m ight be compared t o a b o xing m atch in which one o f th e c o n te s ta n ts a c ts a s r e f e r e e o f t h e b o u t, was th e s i t u a t i o n i n th e ca se o f M arbury v# Madison#

That 5

In

t h a t c a s e , th e power o f th e e x e c u tiv e and th e l e g i s l a t i v e b ra n c h o f our governm ent was a rra y e d on one s id e o f th e d i s ­ p u te and th e power o f th e j u d i c i a l b ra n c h on th e o th er#

The

Supreme C ourt had been asked t o mandamus M adison, th e n s e c r e ­ t a r y o f s t a t e In P r e s id e n t J e f f e r s o n ’ s c a b in e t, t o d e l i v e r E C h e ste r C# IGhxey, The Am erican Problem o f government (New York: F* S. C ro fts and Company, 1935), p # 3UT# 3 M arbury v . M adison, 1 Cranch 137#

33 a c e r t a i n J u s t l c e - o f - t h e - p e a e e com m ission t o M arbury w hich J e f f e r s o n had o rd e re d w ith h e ld *

A lthough th e im m ediate is s u e

was th e a d ju d ic a tio n o f t h e r i g h t s betw een a c i t i z e n o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s and th e e x e c u tiv e departm ent* th e se c o n d a ry i s s u e was th e power o f th e Supreme C ourt t o d e c la r e a law o f C ongress u n c o n s titu tio n a l*

The C ourt h e ld t h a t i t could

n o t is s u e th e w r i t o f mandamus a s p e t i t i o n e d f o r , b ecau se th e A ct o f c o n g re ss o f Septem ber 24, 1789, g r a n tin g t o th e Supreme C ourt g e n e r a l a u t h o r i t y t o is s u e w r i t s o f mandamus t o p u b lic o f f i c e r s , was an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a c t*

By t h i s

d e c is io n th e C ourt e s t a b l is h e d th e p r i n c i p l e o f law t h a t th e Supreme C ourt may d e c la r e law s o f C ongress u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , a p r i n c i p l e w hich h as b een o f te n c h a lle n g e d s in c e t h a t famous ca se b u t n e v e r h as been d e f e a te d .

The d e c is io n a l s o e s t a b ­

l i s h e d th e independence o f th e J u d ic ia r y from d i r e c t c o n tr o l b y C ongress and th e P r e s i d e n t : The f u n c tio n o f th e J u d ic ia r y , t h e r e f o r e , i s t o a d ju d i­ c a te n o t o n ly p r i v a t e d i s p u t e s , b u t a l s o d i s p u t e s betw een in d iv id u a ls and th e governm ent, and t o p a s s upon th e v a l i d i t y o f a d m i n i s tr a t i v e and l e g i s l a t i v e a c t s .

As P r e s id e n t T a ft

e x p re sse d i t , in ad a d d re s s on " J u d ic ia r y and P r o g r e s s ," d e liv e r e d a t T o led o , O hio, 6n March 8 , 1912: As betw een th e i n d i v id u a l and th e s t a t e , a s betw een th e m a jo r ity and th e m in o r ity , as betw een th e p o w erfu l and th e weak, f i n a n c i a l l y , s o c i a l l y , p o l i t i c a l l y , c o u r ts must h o ld an even hand and g iv e Judgment w ith o u t f e a r o r f a v o r . In so doing th e y a re p e rfo rm in g a gov­ ern m e n ta l f u n c tio n , b u t I t I s a com plete m isu n d e rsta n d ­

34

in g o f our form o f governm ent, o r any k in d o f govern­ ment t h a t e x a l t s j u s t i c e and r ig h te n u s n e s s t o assume t h a t ju d g es a r e bound t o fo llo w th e w i l l o f th e m ajo r­ i t y o f an e l e c t o r a t e in r e s p e c t o f th e is s u e f o r t h e i r d e c is io n * In many c a se s b e f o re th e ju d g es t h a t tem p o rary m a jo r ity i s a r e a l p a r ty t o th e c o n tro v e rs y t o be decided* I t may be se e k in g t o d e p riv e an in d iv ­ i d u a l o r a m in o r ity o f a r i g h t se c u re d by th e fu n d a ­ m en tal law* In su ch a c a s e , I f th e ju d g e s were mere r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o r a g e n ts o f th e m a jo r ity t o c a r r y out i t s w i l l , th e y would lo s e t h e i r j u d i c i a l c h a r a c te r en­ t i r e l y and th e s o - c a lle d a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s t i c e would be a fa rc e * In th e U n ited S t a t e s v a rio u s m ethods o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g es a r e employed*

The Judges o f th e f e d e r a l c o u r ts a re

a p p o in tiv e ; th e ju d g es o f most s t a t e c o u r ts a r e e l e c t i v e ; th e n t h e r e a r e a v a r i e t y o f co m b in atio n s o f e l e c t i v e and a p p o in tiv e m ethods in o th e r s t a t e s .

The f i r s t c o n s id e ra ­

t i o n h e re I s m ere ly t o e v a lu a te an in d ep en d en t j u d i c i a r y a s su ch w ith no a tte m p t t o make com parisons betw een th e v a rio u s m ethods o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g es f o r th e p u rp o se o f d e te rm in in g w hich method I s th e b e s t f o r m a in ta in in g an in d ep en d en t j u ­ d i c i a r y on th e b en ch . The in d ep en d en t j u d i c i a r y i s one o f th e g r e a t e s t ach iev em en ts o f A nglo-A m erican h is to r y * our d e m o c ra tic form o f governm ent.

I t i s e s s e n tia l to

I t i s r e s p o n s ib le in a

l a r g e m easure f o r th e t r a d i t i o n a l r e s p e c t f o r law by th e Anglo-Am erican*

^ W* F . W illoughby, Howard T a f t *

0£.

c i t *, p . 357, c i t i n g W illiam

55 I n th e o ld e s t code o f law s known, th e code o f Hammurabi, King o f B abylon, p r i o r t o 2,000 B. C ., i t was th e p r e r o g a tiv e o f th e k in g t o send h i s d e c is io n t o ju d g es in advance o f th e h e a r in g , o r, a f t e r th e r e n d it i o n o f judgm ent, t o compel modi­ f i c a t i o n o r r e t r a c t i o n o f th e d e c is io n on p a in o f se v e re p en ­ a l t i e s , In c lu d in g e x p u ls io n from th e b e n c h . a ""co n tro lle d * and "d e p e n d e n t” c o u rt I

That r e a l l y was

The same a u t o c r a t i c

code o f t h i s B ab y lo n ian k in g p ro v id e d f o r th e rem oval o f a su rg eo n * s hand I f an o p e r a tio n was u n s u c c e s s fu l* The indep en d en ce o f th e j u d i c i a r y grew o u t o f th e doc­ t r i n e o f th e suprem acy o f th e law —t h a t i s , r u l e by re a so n and p r i n c i p l e r a t h e r th a n r u l e by a r b i t r a r y pow er.

T h is doc­

t r i n e i s th e fo u n d a tio n o f th e Magna CSarta, th e B i l l o f B ig h ts , and th e C o n s titu tio n o f th e U n ited S ta te s *

A ll o f o u r p e rs o n 5 a l l i b e r t i e s depend upon th e r e c o g n itio n o f t h i s d o c trin e * The background o f th e in d ep en d en t j u d i c i a r y in th e U n ite d S t a t e s i s found in E n g lis h h i s t o r y .

B efore t h e r e could

be an in d ep en d en t j u d i c i a r y in E n g lan d , th e o p e r a tio n o f th e c o u r ts had t o be s e p a ra te d from th e o th e r f u n c tio n s o f govern­ m ent.

T h is s e p a r a tio n o f power and th e grow th o f an indep end­

e n t j u d i c i a r y w ere th e r e s u l t o f an e v o lu tio n a r y p ro c e s s i n E ngland d u rin g w hich many law y ers and fu d g e s r is k e d and l o s t 5 R o b ert N* W ilk in , The S p i r i t o f th e L eg a l p r o f e s s io n (New Haven: Y ale U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , 1938T, et_ p a ssim .

t h e i r freedom and f o r t u n e s ; some even l o s t t h e i r l i v e s . The triu m p h o f t h e in d ep en d e n t j u d ic ia r y o v er th e Grown began when K ing James th e F i r s t demanded o f S i r Kdward Coke, Chib fa Ju s t i c e* 11 hfit h e , th e k in g , be p e r m itte d t o d i c ­ t a t e th e r e s u l t o f c e r t a i n l i t i g a t i o n .

Coke r e f u s e d , sa y in g

in e f f e c t , t h a t w h ile th e k in g sh o u ld be u n d er no man, he was u n d e r God and th e law .

A lthough Lord Coke e v e n tu a lly l o s t

h i s o f f i c e a s a Ju d g e, he r e tu r n e d t o jbarliam ent and c o n tin ued h i s f i g h t t h e r e , w ith th e r e s u l t t h a t King Jam esf s u c c e ss o r , King C h a rle s , was beheaded f o r d is c la im in g th e p r i n c i p l e s g w hich were ad v o cated b y Lord Coke. As l a t e a s th e tim e o f Lord Bacon, l i t i g a n t s were ex­ p e c te d t o make p r e s e n ts t o th e ju d g e s ,

Lord Bacon defended

h i s a c c e p ta n c e o f p r e s e n ts from l i t i g a n t s in h is c o u rt by s a y in g t h a t he d id n o t alw ays d e c id e in fa v o r o f th o s e who had p a id him m o st. P e rs o n a l in f lu e n c e and lo b b y in g co n tin u ed much lo n g e r th a n b r i b e r y ,

As l a t e as th e r e ig n o f Queen Anne, th e v o te s

o f members o f th e House o f L ords w ere o b ta in e d on a p p e a ls in law c a s e s by lo b b y in g and t r a d i n g , j u s t a s th e y were on o r d in a r y l e g i s l a t i o n .

The b a t t l e f o r j u d i c i a l independence

f i n a l l y was won in 1700 when W illiam th e T h ird p ro v id e d t h a t ju d g es sh o u ld h o ld o f f i c e d u rin g good b e h a v io r and sh o u ld

6 R o b ert R. W illcin, l o o . c i t .

37

be rem ovable o n ly by impeachment o r th e J o in t a c tio n o f th e Crown and b o th h o u ses o f p a rlia m e n t* 7 liven though th e independence o f th e E n g lis h J u d i c ia r y had been e s t a b l i s h e d , th e p r o v i n c i a l Judges th e America w ere not fre e .

Thomas J e f f e r s o n w rote i n t o th e D e c la r a tio n o f

In d ep en d en ce, a s p a r t o f th e in d ic tm e n t o f King George th e T h ird , "He h a s made Judges dependent upon h i s w i l l a lo n e , f o r th e te n u r e o f t h e i r o f f i c e and th e amount o f th e payment of th e ir s a la r ie s ."

IVhen th e t h i r t e e n c o lo n ie s g ain ed t h e i r

freedom from th e B r i t i s h yoke, th e y s e t up an in d ep en d en t ju d ic ia ry .

"They had no more w ish t o have t h e i r judges de­

p en d en t upon th e fa v o r o f th e crow d," s a id th e H onorable Henry T. Lummus, " th a n upon th e fa v o r o f a k i n g . ”

p

I n d r a f t i n g th e C o n s titu tio n , th e fo u n d e rs o f t h i s C ountry, h av in g o b serv ed th e d e f e c ts in E n g lis h governm ent, so u g h t t o s a fe g u a rd a g a in s t ty ra n n y in a l l fo rm s.

They r e a l ­

iz e d th e trem endous im p o rtan ce o f an in d ep en d en t j u d i c i a r y t o a sound governm ent u n d er which f r e e p e o p le could l i v e and o b ta in i m p a r t i a l j u s t i c e from I t s c o u r t s . But what do we mean by I m p a r tia l j u s t i c e ?

The answ er

was g iv e n by Judge Henry T.i Lummus In an a d d re s s a t C h a r le s 7 Henry T. Lummus, "Our H e rita g e o f I m p a r tia l J u s t i c e , " J o u rn a l o f th e Am erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XXII (A p r il, 1959), 245

.

8

L oc.cit.

58 t o n , West V i r g i n i a , Septem ber 26, 1938:

9

When on one s id e o f a l e g a l c o n tro v e rs y , c r im in a l o r c i v i l , t h e r e i s a sm a ll group o r p e rh a p s a lo n e i n d i v id u a l —f r i e n d l e s s , d e s p is e d , h a te d and b e lie v e d g e n e r a lly t o be th e scum o f th e e a r t h — ; and on th e o th e r s id e a r e a rra y e d b o th th e p o w e rfu l and th e p o p u la r—p r e s i d e n t s , g o v e rn o rs, th e p r e s s , th e r e ­ s p e c ta b le and th e w e ll- to - d o , a l l th e power o f p u b lic o p in io n , demagogues w ith p o p u la r p r e ju d ic e in t h e i r fa v o r and s k i l l e d in w hipping t h a t p r e ju d ic e in t o f u r y , and mobs t h a t howl f o r vengeance a g a in s t th e l i t t l e group o r t h e lo n e i n d i v i d u a l , —th e n , in t h a t h o u rc o f c r i s i s , i m p a r t i a l i t y means t h a t th e t r i b u n a l t h a t must make th e d e c is io n w i l l s i t t h e r e , calm , s e r e n e , unmoved by th e tu m u lt and t h e s h o u tin g , an d , g u id ed b y i t s own c o n s c ie n c e , v jy ill d e c id e a c c o rd in g t o th e law and th e e v id e n c e . A more c y n ic a l view o f i m p a r t i a l i t y i n j u s t i c e i s e x p re sse d i n th e F ren ch maxim: **LTamour de l a j u s t i c e n * e s t, en l a p lu p a r t des hommes, que l a c r a i n t e de s o u f f r i r 1*i n j u s t i c e :n

11

t h a t i s , th e lo v e o f j u s t i c e i s , in most men,

n o th in g more th a n th e f e a r o f s u f f e r i n g i n j u s t i c e .

The B ib le

s a y s , * I t i s n o t good t o have r e s p e c t o f p e rso n s in ju d g 12

ment *n

T h is d o c tr in e o f j u d i c i a l independence was n o t d esig n ed f o r th e p e r s o n a l b e n e f i t o f th e ju d g e s, b u t t o produce im par­ t i a l j u s t i c e f o r e v e ry c i t i z e n and p a r t i c u l a r l y f b r th e lo w ly and th e f r i e n d l e s s .

A ddress b e f o re th e I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c ia tio n o f I n ­ d u s t r i a l A cc id en t B oards a n d . Com m issions. 10 11

Henry T. Lummus, op * c i t . , p . 243.

La R o ch efo u cau ld , c i t e d by Henry T. Lummus, The T r i a l Judge (C h icag o : The F o u n d atio n P r e s s , I n c . , 1 9 3 7 ), p . 14. ip L oc. c i t .

39 The v a lu e o f a n in d ep en d en t j u d i c i a r y i s a s g r e a t to d a y a s a t any tim e in A m erican h i s t o r y .

Next t o th e power o f th e

p e o p le th e m se lv e s i n a d e m o c ra tic form o f governm ent, i t i s th e o n ly s a fe g u a rd o f p e r s o n a l l i b e r t i e s a s w e ll a s o f our form o f governm ent.

As has been d e m o n stra te d in c e r t a i n

c o u n tr ie s o f th e w o rld , th e w i l l o f th e p e o p le i s , un d er some c irc u m s ta n c e s , o f l i t t l e v a lu e in p r e s e r v in g such r i g h t s . Economic &©Mihi&h&*ssometimes p a r t i a l l y induced by men f o r t h e i r own en d s, p e rm it le a d e r s t o in d u ce p e o p le t o g iv e up th e r i g h t s w hich o ur f o r e f a t h e r s p r iz e d so h ig h ly .

A s tro n g

p e r s u a s iv e man a s c h ie f e x e c u tiv e o r a w i l f u l C ongress, could pave th e way t o d e s t r u c t i o n o f our v e ry form o f governm ent i f a way co u ld be found t o d e p riv e th e p e o p le o f l i b e r t i e s g u a r­ a n te e d by th e B i l l o f R ig h ts , su c h as f r e e sp e e c h , a f r e e p r e s s , r i g h t o f assem b lag e , e t c .

T his co u ld be done o n ly by

d e s tr o y in g th e in d ependence o f th e c o u r ts t o such an e x te n t t h a t th e y co u ld be made s u b je c t t o th e c o n tr o lo f th e o th e r b ra n c h e s o f govern m en t. A lthough th e e a r l y s tr u g g le f o r independence o f th e J u d ic ia r y was betw een th e Crown and th e Bench, to d a y i t i s m o stly betw een p o l i t i c a l p a r ty o r g a n iz a tio n s and incum bent Ju d g es; t h i s i s t r u e e s p e c i a l l y in s t a t e c o u r t s .

Judges who

must se e k o f f i c e and r e t a i n i t by ru n n in g on p o l i t i c a l t i c k ­ e t s c o n s ta n tly a r e aw are o f th e c o n f l i c t in i n t e r e s t betw een t h e i r two masfcerd? f i r s t , t h e i r o b li g a t io n t o conduct th e

40 j u d i c i a l o f f i c e i m p a r t i a l l y w ith o u t re g a rd t o c o n s id e r a tio n s o th e r th a n th e p ro p e r a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s t i c e ; and seco n d , t h e i r o b l i g a t io n t o th e p o l i t i c a l p a r t y w h ic h 'sp o n so re d t h e i r e l e c t i o n and w hieh can r e - e l e c t o r r e t i r e them .

T h is i s th e

r e s u l t o f one w eakness o f o u r d e m o c ra tic form o f governm ent— nam ely, t h a t le a d e r s a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y men b e s t q u a l i f i e d by v i r t u e o f knowledge and t r a i n i n g , b u t r a t h e r a r e men who know b e s t how t o a p p e a l t o th e g r e a t e s t number o f p eo p le and can o b ta in c o n t r o l o f t h e i r v o tin g power by f l a t t e r y , w ile , ap ­ p e a lin g t o p r e j u d i c e s , and many t r i c k s o f th e s o - c a lle d p r a c ­ t i c a l p o litic ia n . O u tsid e o f th e U n ite d S tat?es, S w itz e rla n d i s th e o n ly c o u n try in th e w orld w hich chooses ju d g es b y p o p u la r v o te .

T *2

In th e U n ite d S t a t e s th e s h i f t t o th e e l e c t i v e method o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g es was made in th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry a s th e r e s u l t o f th e sp re a d o f Ja c k so n ia n Democracy, whose t e n e t s w ere t h a t s o v e r e ig n ty i s v e s te d in a l l th e p eo p le and t h a t governm ent would f a r e b e t t e r b y a llo w in g a s l i t t l e power a s p o s s i b l e t o p a s s from th e p e o p le * s h a n d s; in o th e r w o rd s, th e c o u r ts were t o be made re s p o n s iv e t o p u b lic o p in io n and t h e r e 14 by lib e r a liz e d . " I t i s b o th s tra n g e and s a d ,* s a id Henry T. 13 C h a rle s T. McCormick, * J u d i c i a l S e le c tio n - C u rre n t P la n s and T re n d s ." I l l i n o i s Law Review, XXX (December, 19 3 5 ), 447. 14 Edward M. M a rtin , The R ole o f th e Bar in E le c tin g th e Bench in Chicago (C h icag o : The U n iv e r s ity of~C hicago P r e s s , 195^T, p . 5 .

41

lummus, " to have t o re c o rd t h a t in t h i s c o u n try th e most g rie v o u s s wounds t h a t J u d i c i a l independence h a s s u f f e r e d have 15 b ee n i n f l i c t e d in th e name o f dem ocracy*" T$ro re a s o n s have been a s s ig n e d b y Lummus f o r t h i s s h i f t from an a p p o in tiv e J u d ic ia r y w ith perm anent te n u r e t o a J u d ic ia r y w ith s h o r t term s o f o f f i c e , u s u a l l y e l e c t i v e b u t o c c a s io n a lly a p p o in tiv e *

N e ith e r o f th e s e two re a so n s had

a n y th in g t o do w ith th e c h a r a c te r o f th e t h e n - e x i s t i n g J u d ic ia r y : The f i r s t re a s o n was th e o r d in a r y cheap p o l i t i c a l p u rp o se o f p u t t i n g o u t one s e t o f o f f i c e r s f o r th e sak e o f p u t t i n g i n a n o th e r , w hich o f te n e a sy t o a c c o m p lish where th e incum bents have been com pelled, a s Judges n e c e s s a r i l y a r e co m p elled , t o d is p le a s e many v o te r s in th e o rd in a r y co u rse o f d u ty . A more im p o rta n t re a s o n th a n t h a t was a c e r t a i n f a n t a s t i c p e r v e r s io n and e x a g g e ra tio n o f d em o cratic d o c tr in e t h a t g ain ed a c c e p ta n c e d u rin g t h a t p e rio d in o u r h i s t o r y , and s t i l l b lin d s la r g e m asses o f v o te r s t o th e r e a l i t i e s o f our s i t u a t i o n . The e sse n c e o f th e e r r o r l a y in s e t t i n g up th e b a l l o t , w hich i s o n ly one o f th e " t o o l s o f dem ocracy, a s an i d o l toH5e w o rsh ip p ed ~ in th e p la c e o f d e m o c ra c y " T ts e lf, which~~Tn one a s p e c t Ts th e c o n t r o l o f th e p o l i c i e s o f govern­ ment by inform ed and c o n sid e re d p u b lic o p in io n . T his e r r o r le d t o th e o v erb u rd en in g o f th e v o t e r s , who were com pelled t o b a l l o t upon a horde o f o f f i c e r s and c a n d i­ d a te s whom th e y co u ld n o t r e a l l y know. I t le d t o th e s p o i l s sy stem , w hich r u in s th e p u b lic s e r v ic e by d i s ­ p la c in g m i ll i o n s o f o r d in a r y c i v i l em ployees e v e ry few y e a rs in fa v o r o f o th e r s who th e m se lv e s h o ld t h e i r Jobs o n ly u n t i l th e n e x t p o l i t i c a l c o n v u ls io n , Under th e s p o i l s sy ste m , p u b lic employment e x i s t s n o t f o r th e p u b lic n o r even f o r th e em ployees, b u t m ain ly f o r th e b u i l d e r s o f np o l i t i c a l m ach in es, [ i t a l i c s n o t in th e o r ig in a l] ^ 15

Henry T. Lummus, op. c i t . , p . 245* I b i d . . p p . S45-46.

42

T h is m ista k e n w o rship o f th e form f o r th e s u b s ta n c e - w o rsh ip o f th e b a l l o t , w hich i s o n ly a t o o l o f dem ocracy, in s te a d o f dem ocracy i t s e l f , which Judge lummus spoke o f — i s t y p i c a l o f th e b lin d w orship by many A m ericans o f th e form o f th e C o n s titu tio n o f th e U n ited S t a t e s and th e document i t s e l f , in s te a d o f w o rsh ip o f th e dem ocracy w hich t h a t Con­ s t i t u t i o n s ta n d s fo r*

A ccording t o H a in e s, Thomas J e f f e r s o n

s a id t h a t some men " lo o k a t c o n s t i t u t i o n s w ith sa n c tim o n io u s r e v e r e n c e , and deem them l i k e th e a rk o f th e co v e n a n t, to o s a c re d t o be to u c h e d ," t o w hich H aines a d d s, "When th e F e d e ra l 17 C o n s titu tio n was form ed, men d id n o t so re g a rd th e docum ent." C h a rle s Edward M erriam a ls o p o i n t s o u t t h i s m ista k en i d o l w o rs h ip .

MThe C o n s titu tio n i s n o t an i d o l b u t a s p i r i t , "

s a i d h e , "n o t a form o f w ords b u t a s e t o f p o l i t i c a l a t t i tu d e s and h a b i t s o f b e h a v io r ." 18 "E very p e o p le has i t s s a c re d t e x t and a p r ie s th o o d t o expound i t , " a c c o rd in g t o F e i n s t e i n , "and we have th e C o n s t i t u t i o n and th e Supreme 19 C o u rt." The o r i g i n a l C o n s titu tio n o f th e U n ited S t a t e s —th e

17 C h a rle s Grove H a in e s, A Government o f Laws o r a Government o f Men (Los A n g e le s: The U n iv e r s ity o f C a l if o r n ia a t Los A n g ele s, U n iv e r s ity o f C a li f o r n i a P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , 1 9 2 9 ), p . 27. 18 C h a rle s Edward M erriam , The W ritte n C o n s titu tio n and th e U n w ritte n A t t i tu d e (New York: R ich ard R. Sm ith, I n c ., 1 9 3 1 ), p . 31. 19 I s i d o r F e i n s t e i n , The C ourt D isp o ses (New York: C o v ici F r ie d e , 1 9 3 7 ), p . 9 3.

43

o r i g i n a l document i t s e l f —w r i t t e n in th e h a n d w ritin g o f G ouverneur M o rris, re p o s e s on th e g a l l e r y f l o o r o f th e L ib r a ­ r y o f C ongress in a g l a s s case b e n e a th a l a y e r o f y e llo w g e l ­ a t i n which f i l t e r s o u t i|a rm fu l a c t i n i c ra y s t o p re s e rv e th e docum ent.

George McNamara g u ard s i t as th e m i ll io n s o f Amer­

ic a n s r e v e r e n t l y p a s s b y , n . . . some t r o w i n g th e m se lv e s on t h e i r k n ees b e f o re i t , some a s k in g t o se e t h e s ig n a tu r e o f C h ris to p h e r Columbus, some th e s ig n a tu r e o f C o lo n el L in d b erg h . 20 ft ♦

•

»

E veryone w i l l a g re e t h a t freedom o f th e J u d ic ia r y and I t s co n seq u en t e q u a l i t y o f J u s t i c e In th e d e s id e ra tu m o f o u r J u d i c i a l sy stem r e g a r d l e s s o f th e method b y w hich i t i s a t ­ ta in e d .

In t hex f o r t i e t h p a ra g ra p h o f th e Magna C a rta , th e r e

was in s c r ib e d t h i s i d e a l o f freedom and e q u a l i t y o f J u s t i c e , "n u l l i vendemus, n u l l l ne gab irons, a u t d i f f erem u s, re c tu m a u t J u s tic ia m ; n t h a t i s , " to no one w i l l we s e l l , t o no one w i l l we r e f u s e o r d e la y r i g h t o r J u s t i c e . "

21

R e g a rd le s s o f th e p e r f e c t i o n o f o u r s u b s ta n tiv e law s, no e q u a l i t y o f J u s t i c e can e x i s t w ith o u t i m p a r t i a l and e f f i c ­ i e n t c o u r ts t o a d m in is te r th o s e la w s.

R eg in ald Heber S m ith,

in J u s t i c e and th e P o o r, em phasizes our dependency upon th e

^ Drew P e a rso n and R o b ert S. A lle n , The Nine Old Men (G arden C ity , New Y ork: D oubleday, Doran and Company, i n c . , 1 9 3 6 ), p . 324. 21

R eg in ald Heber S m ith, J u s t i c e and th e Poor (New York: The C arn eg ie F o u n d a tio n f o r th e Advancement o f Teach­ in g , 1 9 1 9 ), p . 3 .

44

c o u r ts f o r e q u a li t y o f j u s t i c e ; F i r s t , th e r e can be no p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l , o r economic e q u a l i t y , no dem ocracy, u n le s s th e sub­ s t a n t i v e law by f a i r and e q u ita b le r u l e s g iv e s r e a l i t y t o e q u a l i t y by making I t a l i v i n g t h i n g . Second, th e s u b s ta n tiv e law , however f a i r and e q u ita b le I t s e l f , I s im p o ten t t o p ro v id e th e n e c e s ­ s a r y s a fe g u a rd s u n le s s th e a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s ­ t i c e , w hich a lo n e g iv e s e f f e c t and fo rc e t o s u h -gg s t a n t i v e law , i s in th e h ig h e s t sen se i m p a r t i a l , 23 As has been p o in te d out by ju d g e Lummls, th e judge m ust a r r i v e a t h i s d e c is io n ca lm ly and s e r e n e ly , unmoved by tu m u lt and s h o u tin g and u n a f f e c te d by th e p o p u la r p a s s io n s o f th e moment, g u id ed o n ly by h i s own c o n sc ie n c e , and t o t a l l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o any p o s s ib le consequences to h im s e lf . th i n g s h o r t o f t h i s would n o t be i m p a r t i a l j u s t i c e .

Any­ As Judge

Lummus e x p re s s e d i t : A j u s t i c e t h a t g iv e s e x p re s s io n and s a n c tio n t o th e o p in io n o r w i l l o f th e m a jo r it y a t th e moment i s n o t j u s t i c e a t a l l . The h i s t o r i c in s ta n c e s o f what m ight be c a lle d d e m o c ra tic j u s t i c e In such a se n se a r e n o t i n v i t i n g ; th e b an ish m ent o f A r i s t i d e s by v o te o f th e A th en ian m u l ti t u d e ; th e ly n c h in g s t h a t have d is g ra c e d t h i s c o u n try even in r e c e n t tim e s ; and th e judgm ent o f th e mob t h a t F o n tiu s P i l a t e c a r r i e d i n to e x e c u tio n a t C a lv a ry . D em ocratic j u s t i c e i n such a sen se i s o n ly a n o th e r name f o r th e ty ra n n y o f num bers. The im p o rtan ce o f h av in g a j u d i c i a r y w ith th e m oral cou rag e t o w ith s ta n d th e p a s s io n s o f th e m u ltitu d e h as been

22

23

I b id ., p . 5. S u p ra , p . 35.

^ H enry T. Lummus, The T r i a l Judge (C h icag o : The F o u n d a tio n P r e s s , I n c . , 193*7), p . 9 .

45

d e m o n stra te d by C h ie f J u s t i c e John M a rs h a ll, who m ight be c a lle d th e f a t h e r o f th e in d e p e n d e n t j u d i c i a r y in "C au tio u s w r i t e r s on th e s u b je c t

t h i s country*

have e s tim a te d * ” so A lb e rt J .

B ev erid g e in fo rm s u s , " t h a t M a r s h a l l's j u d i c i a l o p in io n s on tr e a s o n have saved many th o u sa n d s o f in n o c e n t men and women, who o th e rw is e would have been s a c r i f i c e d t o p o p u la r p a s s io n * "

25

D uring th e Ci v i l War, and a g a in d u rin g th e World War, many more p e rs o n s would have been made th e v ic tim s o f abnorm al s u s p ic io n * g ro u n d le s s rumor* and even p e r s o n a l s p i t e had i t n o t been f o r th e e a r l i e r e f f o r t s o f C h ie f J u s t i c e M arsh all* W ar-tim e p a s s io n s , more th a n any o th e r s i t u a t i o n s , r e q u ir e a j u d i c i a r y w ith th e m o ral courage th e m a sse s.

T h is i s

t o w ith s ta n d th e clam or o f

a p p r e c ia te d o n ly y e a rs l a t e r when th e

la p s e o f tim e h as s o fte n e d h a tre d s * I n a r e c e n t e d ito r ia l* " U n u s u a l C o n test in J u s t i c e , " th e A riz o n a R e p u b lic o f P hoenix r e f e r r e d t o K a is e r W ilhelm th e Second, fo rm er Emperor o f Germany, and th e p o s t-w a r p a s s io n s f o r rev en g e a g a in s t him . a re fu g e e in H o lla n d .

At th e tim e o f t h i s c o n t e s t , he was

One e n tr a n t in th e c o n te s t su g g e ste d

t h a t W ilhelm be tu r n e d o v er t o th e B e lg ia n s*

A nother su g g e ste d

t h a t th e E x -K a ise r be hanged on th e t o r c h o f th e S ta tu e o f L ib e r t y i n Hew York H arbor*

A t h i r d th o u g h t he sh o u ld be

25 A lb e rt J* B everidge* The S t a t e o f th e Hat io n ( I n d ia n a p o lis ; B o b b s -M e rrill Company, 1 9 ^ 4 ), p . 64.

46

to s s e d t o th e U n ited S t a t e s M arines and th e y would do th e re s t.

The e x te n t o f th e b i t t e r n e s s was shown, how ever, by

th e c o n te s ta n t who su g g e ste d t h a t th e form er em peror sh o u ld be made t o d ig h i s own g ra v e ; th e n s t r i p s o f s k in sh o u ld be removed from h i s body and he sh o u ld be r o l l e d in m o lasses and t i e d o v er a re d a n t n e s t*

The s u g g e s tio n t h a t he sh o u ld

be p u t i n t o s o l i t a r y confinem ent was c o n sid e re d m ild p u n ish ^ m en t.

T h is e d i t o r i a l comments:

Some o f th e s u g g e s tio n s o f f e r e d in th e c o n te s t . . . seem r a t h e r lu d ic r o u s to d a y in l i g h t o f what h a s happened s in c e th e fo rm er German em peror f l e d from Germany* . * . Germany u n d e r th e K a is e r was a dem ocracy a s compared t o t o t a l i t a r i a n Germany u n d e r H i t l e r and h i s N azis* In commenting upon th e p o p u la r d is a p p ro v a l a t th e tim e o f John M a r s h a ll's d e c is io n i n th e famous case o f M arbury v . M adison and th e a p p r e c ia tio n t h a t i s now f e l t b e c a u se o f h i s m o ral courage i n t h a t c a s e , B ev erid g e s a y s : . . . . The v a lu e t o a dem ocracy o f a s te a d y in g f o r c e w as-n o t th e n so w e ll u n d e rsto o d as i t i s a t p r e s e n t , b u t th e C h ie f J u s t i c e [John M arshall] f u l l y a p p r e c ia te d i t and d eterm in ed a t a l l h a z a rd s t o make t h e N a tio n a l J u d i c i a r y th e s t a b i l i z i n g power t h a t i t h as s in c e b eco m e.2” The f e a r l e s s n e s s and i m p a r t i a l i t y w hich i s so e s s e n ­ t i a l t o th e j u d i c i a l tem peram ent m a n ife s ts i t s e l f som etim es

E d i t o r i a l i n th e A riz o n a R ep u b lic fP h o e n ix -] , F e b ru a ry 11, 1939. A lb e rt J . B e v e rid g e , The L if e o f John M a rs h a ll (4 v o l s . $ o s t o n : H oughton, M i f f l i n . and-Company, 1916-19}, v o l . I l l , p p . 104-33*

47 In la w y e rs In t h e i r law p r a c t i c e , th e re b y r e v e a li n g j u d i c i a l p o t e n t i a l i t i e s ; e v e ry law y er i s a p o t e n t i a l ju d g e .

Judge

H enry T . Lummus c a l l s a t t e n t i o n t o h e r o ic exam ples o f law y ers t

who b ra v ed r o y a l re se n tm e n t o r p o p u la r w ra th and r is k e d t h e i r o w hole f u t u r e t o save t h e i r c o u n try and i t s law s from th e d i s ­ g ra c e o f d en y in g , even t o a man b e lie v e d g u i l t y , a f a i r t r i a l a c c o rd in g t o law .

As s h in in g exam ples o f su ch m o ra l c o u ra g e ,

Lummus c i t e s E rs k in e , who u p h eld th e r i g h t o f th e in d iv id u a l a g a in s t th e governm ent o f th e d ay ; C u rran , who d efen d ed th e I r i s h P a t r i o t s o f th e l a s t y e a rs o f th e e ig h te e n th c e n tu r y ; John Adams, who r is k e d h i s r e p u t a t i o n w ith h i s C o lo n ia l A sso­ c i a t e s by d e fe n d in g th e B r i t i s h s o l d i e r s accused i n th e "Bos­ to n M assac re"; and Sew ard, who b ra v e d th e condem nation o f th e p o p u lace in d e fe n d in g h i s in sa n e n e g ro c l i e n t , Freem an. Among t h e n o b le exam ples o f courage on th e b en ch , Lummus c i t e s t h e a c ti o n o f C h ief J u s t i c e Jo sep h R ockw ell Swan, o f Ohio, who k e p t h i s ju d ic ia n o a th by s u s t a in in g th e F u g itiv e S la v e Law, 28 th o u g h he knew i t would c o s t him h i s j u d i c i a l o f f i c e a t th e n e x t e l e c t i o n ; th e r e c e n t exam ples o f Judge F e rd in a n d J e lk e , J r . , a l s o o f O hio, who r e f u s e d t o s e t a s id e a judgm ent a t th e d i c t a t i o n o f Boss George B. Cox, f o r w hich r e f h s a l th e judge was d e n ie d re n o m in a tio n ; and th e in c id e n t w hich o c c u rre d s i x y e a rs ago when Judge C h a rle s C. B ra d le y , fo rm e rly o f Le M ars, OQ

Ex p a r t e B u s h n e ll, 9 Ohio S ta t e 77. (1859)

48

Iow a, on A p r il 25, 1953, r e f u s e d t o p ro m ise t h a t he would n o t s ig n any more f o r e c lo s u r e d e c re e s a lth o u g h a mob had a 29 ro p e aro u n d h i s neck and th r e a te n e d t o hang him* I n c o n t r a s t t o su ch exam ples o f courage on th e bench, h i s t o r y re c o u n ts many in s ta n c e s o f j u d i c i a l cow ardice and t r a v e s t i e s on J u s t i c e , su ch a s th e famous t r i a l s o f S o c r a te s , J e s u s , Mary S t u a r t , R o b ert Linmet, A lfre d D rey fu s, and many o t h e r s , b u t no more h o r r i b l e example o f j u d i c i a l cow ardice can be found th a n was shown a t th e t r i a l o f Je su s b e f o r e th e P ra e to riu m o f P i l a t e .

W a lter M. C h a n d le r, a law yer o f th e

New York B ar, who h as w r i t t e n e x t e n s i v e l y on th e p u r e ly l e g a l p h a se s o f th e t r i a l o f J e s u s from a la w y e r 's p o in t o f view , sa y s o f t h i s t r i a l : A h o r r i b l e t r a v e s t y of j u s t i c e , t h i s I *A bsolve* and fI b i s ad crucem *, in th e same b r e a t h , were th e f i n a l u t t e r a n c e s o f a Roman judge a d m in is te rin g Roman law in th e most memorable j u d i c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n known t o men. A lth o u g h h i s t o r y re c o u n ts in n u m erab le in s ta n c e s o f j u d i c i a l cou rag e and f o r t i t u d e , t h a t i s n o t p ro o f t h a t a l l ju d g es can be depended upon t o show th e same courage i f p u t t o th e t e s t o f b e in g s u b je c te d t o p o l i t i c a l o r o th e r p re s s u re * "The su p p ly o f m o ral h e ro e s in any community i s n e v e r la r g e 28 • *H enry T. Lummus, op. c i t *, p p . 1 2 -1 3 . 30 W alter M. C h an d ler, The T r i a l o f Je su s from a Law­ y e r *s S ta n d p o in t (V ol. I I , The Roman T r i a l , 2 v o l s . New York: T h e -F e d e ra l Book Company, 1 9 2 5 ), p p . 1 5 8 -5 9 .

49

enough t o man th e J u d i c i a l s h ip from stem t o s t e r n , " says Lummus, who a d d s , "Any g o v ern m en tal sy stem t h a t r e q u ir e s a com plete s e t o f h e r o ic o f f i c i a l s f o r i t s s u c c e s s f u l o p e r a tio n 31 i s foredoom ed t o f a i l u r e * " F ra n c e , a lth o u g h a dem ocracy, h as a r a t h e r u n iq u e method o f i n t im i d a t i n g i t s Judges* r e c e iv e a d e q u a te s a l a r i e s *

T ery few Judges in F rance

There a r e hu n d red s o f p r o v i n c ia l

c o u r ts i n w hich t h e Judges r e c e iv e th e e q u iv a le n t o f #4.00 p e r day and t h i s s tip e n d i s r e c e iv e d o n ly a f t e r one p ro m o tio n . B e sid e s t h i s u n d e rp a y in g o f th e J u d i c i a r y , F ran ce has a p r a c t i c e w hich i s s t i l l more re p u g n a n t t o u s ; i t i s th e p re se n c e in c o u rt o f a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f th e m i n is t e r o f J u s t i c e , who e x e r c i s e s a s u b tle in f lu e n c e on c o u rt d e c is io n s . P ro m o tio n from a p r o v i n c i a l Ju d g esh ip t o a h ig h e r p o s i t io n and a l a r g e r s a l a r y on th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls i s dependent upon th e whims and f a n c ie s o f th e m i n is t e r o f J u s t i c e ; h i s l i s t o f p ro m o tio n s alw ays i s approved by th e P r e s id e n t o f th e Repub­ lic .

In making up t h i s l i s t , th e m i n is te r o f J u s t i c e may

ta k e in t o c o n s id e r a tio n th e w ish es o f l o c a l d e p u tie s (members o f p a r lia m e n t)*

A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f th e m i n is t e r o f J u s t ic e

alw ays I s p r e s e n t i n c o u r t; he may ta k e p a r t in c i v i l ca ses a s w e ll as c r im in a l; he i s above d i s c i p l i n e by th e c o u r t; in f a c t , he a f f o r d s a p o t e n t i a l medium f o r d o m in atio n o f th e 31

Henry T* Lummus, op* c i t *, p* 91.

50 j u d i c i a r y by th e M in is te r o f J u s t i c e w hich a lm o st p la c e s th e a d m i n i s tr a t i o n o f J u s t i c e u n d er th e c o n tr o lo f t h i s one o f f i ­ c ia l*

Hot lo n g ago th e p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f c o r r u p tin g th e

F ren ch sy stem o f j u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a tio n was d e m o n stra te d in th e famous S ta v is k y c a s e , in which p r o s e c u tio n was lo n g d e­ f e r r e d b e c a u se some o f th e h ig h e s t governm ent o f f i c i a l s were - , 32 in v o lv e d . In our own s t a t e c o u r ts , t h e r e i s no p e r s o n a l r e p r e ^ s e n t a t i v e o f any d o m in atin g o f f i c i a l p r e s e n t d u rin g c o u rt p ro c e d u re t o in tim id a te th e c o u r t; how ever, in th o s e s t a t e s w here th e judge i s f a c in g r e - e l e c t i o n b y p o p u la r v o te , t h e r e i s p r e s e n t t h e s p e c tr e o f th e n e x t e l e c t i o n t o in tim id a te him. Much h as been s a id ab o u t th e m oral courage r e q u ir e d o f ju d g es t o keep o u r j u d i c i a r y in d e p e n d e n t, b u t j u s t what do we mean by *m oral co u rag e* ?

One o f th e b e s t d e f i n i t i o n s has

b een g iv e n by M aurice S w itz e r : M oral cou rag e i s n o t, n e c e s s a r i l y , s p e c ta c u l a r and t h e r e f o r e o f te n goes u n n o tic e d ; i t seldom s e e k s t o a ttr a c t a tte n tio n to I t s e l f . I t does n o t p erfo rm co urageous d eeds f o r th e sake o f p u b lic a p p ro v a l o r u n i v e r s a l a p p la u s e . I t does b o ld ly and f e a r l e s s l y g g what i s r i g h t b e e a u s e .i t i s th e r i g h t th in g t o do* P lu ta r c h s a i d , "Courage c o n s i s t s n o t in h a z a rd in g

32

U nsigned a r t i c l e , " P o l i t i c a l Dependence o f Judges in F r a n c e ." J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d i c a t u r e , 2X1 (August.*i 1937 } , 4 1 . 33 M aurice S w itz e r , "C o u ra g e." Making th e G rade, a c o l l e c t i o n o f e s s a y s . (Few York; K e lly S p r in g f i e l d T ire Company, 1922}, p . 27.

51 w ith o u t f e a r , b u t i n b e in g r e s o l u t e l y minded i n a j u s t c a u s e ." The movement f o r an in d ep en d e n t j u d i c i a r y r e c e iv e d a t e r r i f i c im pact d u rin g th e s tr u g g le betw een th e Supreme Court o f th e U n ited S t a t e s and th e "New D ea l" d u rin g P r e s id e n t F r a n k lin D elano R o o s e v e lt f s second te rm . /

The P r e s i d e n t su b -

s c r ib e d t o th e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e t h a t th e j u d i c i a r y sh o u ld be in d e p e n d e n t b u t d is a g re e d w ith th e C ourt a s t o th e n a tu r e o f t h a t , in d e p e n d e n c e .

In one o f h i s f i r e - s i d e t a l k s o v e r th e

r a d io i n March, 1927, he s a id : I w ant—a s a l l A m ericans w ant— an in d e p e n d e n t j u d i c i a r y as p ro p o sed by th e fra m e rs o f th e C o n s ti­ t u t i o n . That means a Supreme C ourt t h a t w i l l e n fo rc e th e C o n s titu tio n a s w r i t t e n —t h a t w i l l r e f u s e t o amend th e C o n s t it u t i o n b y th e a r b i t r a r y e x e r c is e o f j u d i c i a l power—amendment by j u d i c i a l s a y ^ s o . I t does n o t mean a j u d i c i a r y so in d ep en d e n t t h a t i t caggdeny t h e e x is te n c e o f f a c t s u n i v e r s a l l y re c o g n iz e d . In th e Supreme C ourt c o n tro v e rs y , t h a t q u a l i t y o f b e in g " r e s o l u t e l y m inded" was p r e s e n t w ith th e J u s t i c e s a s w e ll a s w ith th e P r e s i d e n t ; th e d if f e r e n c e l i e s i n w hat ea ch c o n s id e r­ ed t o be "a j u s t c a u s e ." There I s no doubt t h a t i n c id e n t s can be c i t e d o f ab u se s by l i f e - t e n u r e ju d g es as w e ll a s b y s h o r t- te r m ju d g e s— b o th e le c te d and a p p o in te d ju d g e s —b e c a u s e , a f t e r a l l ,

judges

a r e s u b je c t t o te m p ta tio n s a s o th e r p e o p le a r e and have n o t 24

I b i d . » p . 26.

35 E rn e s t A n g e ll, Supreme C ourt P rim er (New York: R eynal and H itc h c o c k , 1937},. p . 68.

52

been endowed w ith any g r e a t e r r e s i s t a n c e by th e C re a to r*

A

r e c e n t in c id e n t o f a l i f e - t e n u r e Judge b e tr a y in g h i s t r u s t was t h a t o f Judge M a rtin T. M anton, who on June 20, 1959, was f in e d $1 0 ,0 0 0 and se n te n c e d t o tw o y e a rs i n p r is o n f o r s e l l i n g h i s i n t e g r i t y a s s e n io r Judge o f th e Second D i s t r i c t , U n ite d S t a t e s C i r c u i t C ourt o f A p p e a ls.

Judge Manton had'

b een r e c e iv in g a s a l a r y o f $12,500 a y e a r and had r i s e n t o th e p o s i t i o n o f th e n e x t h ig h e s t- r a n k in g J u r i s t t o th e n in e Suprem e-C ourt J u s t i c e s .

Judge C a lv in C h e s tn u t, o f M aryland,

was a s s ig n e d by C h ie f J u s t i c e Hughes t o p r e s id e a t th e t r i a l o f Judge Manton b e c a u se o f th e U nusual n a tu re o f th e c a s e , In p ro n o u n cin g Judgment on Judge M anton, Judge C h e stn u t d e liv e r e d a s e v e re e x c o r i a t io n : I n view o f th e n a tu r e o f t h i s c a s e , a s d is c lo s e d b y th e e v id e n c e , even t h i s maximum s e n te n c e may seem in a d e q u a te t o some o f t h e p u b l i c , x x x The d e fe n d a n t, a h ig h J u d i c i a l o f f i c e r o f th e U n ited S t a t e s governm ent, was p o s s e s s e d o f a g r e a t p e r s o n a l f o r tu n e w h ich , b e in g l a r g e l y in v e s te d i n c o r p o ra te e q u i t i e s , was s e r i o u s l y th r e a te n e d by f i n a n c i a l c o n d itio n s e x i s t i n g a few y e a rs ago. In th e a tte m p t t o save t h i s f o r tu n e he v i o l a t e d th e m ost fu n d a m e n ta l f e a t u r e o f h i s J u d i c i a l o f f i c e , w hich r e q u i r e s a b s o lu te i m p a r t i a l i t y and p e r s o n a l d i s i n t e r ­ e s te d n e s s in t h e p erfo rm an ce o f h i s o f f i c i a l d u t i e s , and a g re e d t o u se th e power and in flu e n c e o f h i s g r e a t p o s i t i o n t o p ro c u re la r g e sums o f money by lo a n s o r o th e rw is e from l i t i g a n t s , t o b o l s t e r up h i s f a d in g f o r t u n e . x x x A l l p u b lic o f f i c e i s a p u b lic t r u s t , b u t th e j u d i c i a l o f f i c e i s even more th a n t h i s * I t i s a s a c re d t r u s t , ( " it a l i c s I n th e o r i g i n a l ] New ite m in th e A riz o n a R ep u b lic June 21, 1939•

|p h o e n ix J ,

53 A lth o u g h t h i s c o r r u p tio n o f a J u d i c i a l o f f i c e b y Judge Manton d id o cc u r in th e f e d e r a l J u d ic ia r y w hich i s a p p o in tiv e and in d e p e n d e n t o f d i r e c t p o p u la r c o n t r o l , i t p ro b a b ly would have o c c u rre d even i f Judge Manton had been s u b je c t t o p e r£ io d i c r e - e l e c t i o n t o o f f i c e .

R e g a rd le s s o f th e sy stem o f

s e l e c t i o n and th e te n u r e in o f f i c e , i t i s l i k e l y t h a t t h e r e w i l l alw ay s be some Judges who w i l l b e t r a y t h e i r t r u s t .

I f G h r is t,

more w ise th a n any m o rta l man, had one t r a i t o r in th e tw e lv e men he had s e le c te d a s h i s d i s c i p l e s , how can we hope t o e s ­ cape c o m p le te ly from b e t r a y a l s o f J u d i c i a l tr u s |r ?

Our J u d ic ­

i a l re c o rd o f f a i t h f u l p erfo rm an ce i s much b e t t e r th a n th e e le v e n t o one r e c o r d o f C h r i s t 's d i s c i p l e s . The c o n c lu s io n I s o b v io u s t h a t an In d ep en d en t J u d ic ia r y I s p r e f e r a b l e by f a r t o a d ep en d en t J u d ic ia r y r e g a r d le s s o f th e n a tu r e o f t h a t d ep en d en ce.

C h ief J u s t i c e M a rsh a ll t o l d

th e V ir g in ia C o n s t i t u t i o n a l C onvention in 1829: I have alw ays th o u g h t, from my e a r l i e s t y o u th t i l l now, t h a t th e g r e a t e s t sco u rg e an an g ry Heaven e v e r i n f l i c t e d upon an u n g r a t e f u l and s in n in g p e o p le , was an ig n o ra n t , a c o r r u p t, o r a dependent J u d i c i a r y . 37 Take away J u d i c i a l ind ep en d en ce and, f i g u r a t i v e l y , our c o u r ts w i l l cease t o e x i s t , f o r when a d e c is io n i s c o n tr o lle d o r a f f e c t e d b y e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e o f o p in io n , i t c e a s e s t o be th e d e c is io n o f th e c o u r t; on th e c o n tr a r y , i t becomes th e d e c is io n o f some o th e r agency o u ts id e o f th e J u d i c i a l sy stem ; and th e s o - c a l l e d Judge who makes t h a t d e c is io n , even th o u g h he f u n c tio n s a s a Judge, i n r e a l i t y i s n o t a Judge a t a l l / —-

A lb e rt J . B e v e rid g e , The L if e o f John M a rsh a ll (V ol. IV, 4 v o l . B o sto n : H oughton, M i f f li n and Company, 1 9 1 6 -1 9 ), p . 495.

CHAPTER I I I DESIRABLE QUALITIES OF A JUDGE In th e e a r l y h i s t o r y o f th e U n ited S t a t e s any m ale c i t i z e n co u ld become a judge r e g a r d l e s s o f h i s l l e a r n i n g , t r a i n i n g j o r i n t e l l e c t u a l f i t n e s s f o r th e o f f ic e *

Men were

c a ll e d t o th e bench from p o l i t i c a l and o th e r w alks o f l i f e ; p e rh a p s a m erc h an t, a b a n k e r, a fa rm e r, a sc h o o l t e a c h e r — i n f a c t , laym en from n e a r l y e v e ry w alk o f l i f e —have been e le v a te d t o th e p o s i t i o n o f ju d g e , w hich f r e q u e n tl y was a rew ard f o r p o l i t i c a l lo y a lty *

Sometimes a la w y e r, w ith l i t t l e

more know ledge o f law th a n th e o r d in a r y laym an, was s e l e c t e d f o r a ju d g esh ip *

T h e x q u e stio n o f h i s know ledge o f l e g a l

h i s t o r y , o f l e g a l s c ie n c e , o r o f th e p h ilo s o p h y o f t h e law d id n o t seem im p o r ta n t. Most o f th e s e " f r o n t i e r " ju d g es were h o n e s t men; th e y s u b s t i t u t e d f o r t h e i r la c k o f knowledge o f th e law t h e i r own m o ral p r i n c i p l e s ; th e y d e c id e d o r d in a r y c o n tr o v e r s ie s on th e b a s i s o f r e l a t i v e f a i r n e s s and j u s t i c e , b e in g guided by th e common s ta n d a r d s o f j u s t i c e w hich p r e v a ile d in t h e i r own p a r t i c u l a r community*

V ery few c a se s were a p p e a le d t o th e

h ig h e r c o u r ts where d e c is io n s were made on th e b a s i s o f law r a t h e r th a n on th e p e r s o n a l p r e d e l i c t i o n s o f th e t r i a l judge* Those p r i m i t i v e c o n d itio n s o f j u s t i c e se rv e d w e ll enough f o r t h e sim p le l i f e o f f r o n t i e r d a y s .

55 But w ith th e grow ing co m p lex ity o f modern l i f e and o f th e law i t s e l f , t h e r e became a n e v e r - in c r e a s i n g demand f o r more and more t r a i n i n g in l e g a l h i s t o r y , in l e g a l s c ie n c e , and in t h e p h ilo s o p h y o f law f o r our ju d g e s .

The somewhat r e c e n t

a p p o in tm e n ts o f F e l i x F r a n k f u r te r and W illiam 0 . D ouglas t o t h e Supreme C ourt o f th e U n ited S t a t e s by P r e s id e n t R o o se v e lt i s ev id en c e o f t h a t t r e n d .

Then, to o , p le a d in g and p r a c t i c e

i n c o u r ts have become so t e c h n i c a l t h a t o n ly a judge who has b een a law y er w ith c o n s id e ra b le e x p e rie n c e i n c o u rt work b e ­ f o r e b e in g e le v a te d t o th e bench can hope t o cope w ith th e pro b lem s w ith w hich a judge i s c o n fro n te d th e s e days.*1" Law h a s become such a s c ie n c e and p r o f e s s io n t h a t no lo n g e r can th e p r o t e c t i o n o f our fu n d am en tal r i g h t s be e n tr u s te d t o th e judge whose o n ly c la im t o h i s r i g h t o f j u d i c i a l o f f i c e i s h i s cam paign c la im t o " h o n e s ty and i n t e g r i t y , " a m eaning­ l e s s c la im made by many p o l i t i c a l c a n d id a te s , e s p e c i a l l y th o s e who have no s p e c i f i c q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r th e o f f i c e th e y seek.

A judge w ith o u t knowledge and s k i l l in c o u rt p ro c e d u re

would be l i k e a p e rs o n t r y i n g t o d r iv e an au to m o b ile w ith o u t any knowledge o f i t s m echanism o r s t e e r i n g a p p a r a tu s . In th e C o n s titu tio n o f th e S ta te o f A riz o n a , p r o v i­ s io n s w ere made t h a t o n ly p e rso n s " le a rn e d in th e law "— i

C h a rle s Grove H aines and B e rth a Moser H a in e s, P r i n c i p l e s and Problem s o f Government (New Y ork: H arper and B ro th e rs , 19Se>), p p . 4 0 4 ^ 5 .

56

Lawyers who have had an a c t u a l p r a c t i c e i n A riz o n a c o u r ts — would he e l i g i b l e f a r th e ju d g e s h ip s o f th e Supreme C ourt and o f th e S u p e rio r C o u rts o f th e s t a t e .

U n f o r tu n a te ly , no

re q u ire m e n ts were l a i d down f o r th e o f f i c e o f J u s t i c e o f th e Peace.

Most o f t h e J u s t i c e - o f - th e - B e a c e c o u r ts in A riz o n a

s t i l l a r e p r e s id e d o v e r by laym en•

W ith r e s p e c t t o th e Supreme-

e o u r t and th e S u p e r io r - c o u r t ju d g e s h ip s , th e C o n s titu tio n o f A riz o n a s e t s f o r t h th e fo llo w in g re q u ir e m e n ts : Ho p e rso n s h a l l be e l i g i b l e f o r th e o f f i c e o f judge o f t h e Supreme C o u rt, u n le s s he s h a l l be le a r n e d in th e law , a t l e a s t t h i r t y y e a r s o f a g e , and s h a l l have been a judge o f , o r a d m itte d t o p r a c t i c e b e f o r e , th e h ig h e s t c o u rt o f A riz o n a f o r a t l e a s t f i v e y e a r s , and s h a l l have b een a r e s i d e n t o f A riz o n a f o r f i v e y e a rs n e x t p re c e d in g h is e le c tio n . No p e rso n s h a l l be e l i g i b l e f o r th e o f f i c e o f judge o f th e S u p e rio r C o u rt, u n le s s he s h a l l be le a r n e d in t h e law , a t l e a s t tw e n ty - f iv e y e a rs o f a g e , and s h a l l have b een a d m itte d t o p r a c t i c e b e f o re th e h ig h e s t c o u rt o f A riz o n a f o r a t l e a s t two y e a r s , and s h a l l have been a r e s i d e n t o f A riz o n a f o r two y e a rs n e x t p re c e d in g h i s e l e c t i o n , ( i t a l i c s n o t in th e o r i g i n a l } ! S in ce th e j u d i c i a l p ro c e d u re b e g in s w ith th e t r i a l c o u r t, and s in c e a p p e l l a t e ju d g e s in th e s t a t e c o u r ts u s u a ll y a r e g ra d u a te s from th e t r i a l bench, th e q u a l i t i e s t h a t make a good t r i a l judge a r e o f fo re m o st im p o rta n c e ; and s in c e th e p r i n c i p a l f u n c tio n o f th e t r i a l judge i s t o a p p ly th e law t o th e c a s e s t h a t come b e f o r e him, th e m e n ta l equipm ent and

Z

C o n s titu tio n o f A riz o n a , A r tic e YX, s e c t i o n 13.

57 a t t i t u d e s o f th e t r i a l ju dges sh o u ld he th e f i r s t c o n s id e r a ­ t i o n s in s e l e c t i n g th e ty p e p f ju d g es t h a t w i l l im prove th e j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s tr a t i o n o f j u s t i c e .

I t i s i n th e a p p l i c a t i o n

o f th e common law t h a t th e judge f in d s a g r e a t e r c h a lle n g e th a n i n th e s t a t u t e s .

The more im p o rta n t s t a t e s t a t u t e s

have b een f a i r l y w e ll d e fin e d and f ix e d by th e J .e g is la tu r e s and th e r e s p e c t i v e Supreme C o u rts . There a r e two s c h o o ls w ith o p p o s ite t h e o r i e s a s t o th e n a tu r e and so u rc e o f common la w .

The B la c k s to n ia n sc h o o l

s u b s c r ib e s t o th e f i c t i o n t h a t common law e x i s t s , and alw ays h as e x i s t e d somewhere i n sp a c e , p e r f e c t and co m p lete, w ith an answ er t o e v e ry q u e s t i o n , and a l l t h a t th e judges have t o do i s t o d is c o v e r and u se what a lr e a d y e x i s t s .

The o th e r s c h o o l—

th e s o - c a l l e d r e a l i s t s —* fe els t h a t common law h as no r e a l p r i n c i p l e s and t h a t th e s o - c a l le d common law d e c is io n s a re a r b i t r a r y e x p r e s s io n s o f t h e w i l l o f th e c o u r t, 5 th e s e t h e o r i e s o f th e common law i s c o r r e c t .

n e ith e r of

H a rla n F isk e S to n e , w h ile dean o f Columbia Law S ch o o l, Columbia U n iv e r s ity , b e f o r e h i s ap p o in tm en t t o th e Supreme C ourt o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s by P r e s id e n t C oo lid g e in 1925, w ro te in th e Columbia Law Review : The method o f s o c io lo g y i s th e m ethod w hich th e w ise an d .c o m p e te n t judge u s e s i n r e n d e r in g th e dynamic d e c is io n s w hich make th e law a l i v i n g f o r c e . H ardw icke, 5

Henry T. Lummus, The T r i a l Judge (C hicago: The F o u n d a tio n P r e s s , I n c . , 1 9 5 7 ), p . 3>. .

58

M a n sfie ld and M a rs h a ll em ployed i t lo n g b e f o re t h e p h ra s e " s o c io l o g i c a l ju ris p ru d e n c e * was th o u g h t o f . The weak and in co m p eten t judge cannot u se i t and in d e e d i n h is hands i t i s a d an g ero u s in s tru m e n t, . f o r th e o n ly g u id e f o r i t s u se i s j u d i c i a l wisdom. I s t h e r e any ty p e o f l e g a l mind and a t t i t u d e t h a t i s th e one b e s t ty p e f o r j u d i c i a l o f f i c e ?

I f th e re i s , i t has

n o t y e t been d is c o v e r e d , b ec au se th e c o n s id e r a tio n s t h a t i n ­ f lu e n c e a ju d g e 's d e c is io n s a re num erous and v a r io u s . B enjam in N. Cardozo,. whose d e a th c r e a te d th e v ac an cy t h a t p u t i

F e l i x F r a n k f u r te r on th e S u p rem e-co u rt b en ch , sum m arized th e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s —t h a t i s , th e f o r c e s w hich in f lu e n c e th e judge in making h i s d e c is i o n s , a s f o llo w s : My a n a l y s i s o f th e j u d i c i a l p ro c e s s comes th e n t o t h i s , and l i t t l e m ore; l o g i c , and h i s t o r y , and custom , and u t i l i t y , and th e a c c e p te d s ta n d a r d s o f r i g h t con­ d u c t a r e t h e f o r c e s w hich s i n g l y o r In co m b in atio n sh ap e t h e p r o g r e s s o f t h e la w . Which o f th e s e f o r c e s s h a l l dom inate In any c a s e , must depend l a r g e l y upon t h e co m p arativ e im p o rtan ce o r v a lu e o f th e s o c i a l I n t e r e s t s t h a t w i l l be th e r e b y prom oted o r im p a ire d . . . . I f you a s k how he i s t o know when one i n t e r e s t o u tw eig h s a n o th e r , I can o n ly answ er t h a t he must g e t h i s knowledge j u s t a s th e l e g i s l a t o r g e ts i t ; from e x p e rie n c e and s tu d y and r e f l e c t i o n ; i n b r i e f , from l i f e i t s e l f . H ere, in d e e d , i s th e p o in t o f c o n ta c t b etw een th e l e g i s l a t o r s work and h i s . 53 S i g n i f i c a n t i s J u s t i c e C a rd o z o 's sta te m e n t t h a t th e dom inant in f lu e n c e s w ith th e same i n d i v i d u a l judge d i f f e r

A

H a rla n F Isk e S to n e c i t e d by Henry T. lummus, l o c .

c it. 5

Benjam in N. C ardozo, The N a tu re o f th e J u d i c i a l P ro c e s s (New Haven: T a le U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , 1 ^21)7 p p . 1 1 2 u r .----------

\

59 a c c o rd in g t o th e p a r t i c u l a r case b e f o re th e c o u rt*

In one

ca se i t may be s t r i c t l y l o g i c a l re a s o n in g ; in a n o th e r i t may fo llo w h i s t o r i c a l p r e c e d e n t; w h ile t h e custom s and a c c e p te d s ta n d a r d s o f th e tim e and p la c e may be th e c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r i n a n o th e r c a s e ; and* what seems t o have been one o f th e s t r o n g e s t f o r c e s in Judge C ardozo*s own d e c is io n s * c o n s id e r a ­ t i o n o f u t i l i t y may be th e d e te rm in in g i n f l u e n c e . U n t i l r e c e n t y e a rs no p r e - l e g a l e d u c a tio n was c o n s id e r ­ ed co m plete w ith o u t t h e i n c lu s io n o f a c o u rse in fo rm a l lo g ic * T h is o v e r-e m p h a sis o f l o g ic was co u p led w ith a m isg u id ed wor­ s h ip o f p r e c e d e n t.

The d an g e r o f to o much r e l i a n c e on l o g i c

h a s been p o in te d o u t b y C h a rle s A. B eard : Hence i t would a p p e a r t h a t t l o g i e f i s i n r e a l i t y a tw o -ed g ed sword w hich c u ts b o th w ays. 'l o g i c a l r e a s ­ o n in g f i s o n ly one mode o f d is c o v e r in g t r u t h , a t b e s t a d u b io u s mode* and n o t t h e in s tru m e n t m ost e f f e c t ­ i v e l y u sed b y s c ie n c e i n making i t s am azing triu m p h s . P o w e rfu l minds* e q u a lly l o g i c a l and, f o r p r a c t i c a l p u rp o ses* e q u a lly inform ed* o f te n a r r i v e a t d i f f e r e n t ends b y th e l o g i c m ethod. I t i s a p p a ren t* t h e r e f o r e , t h a t a d e c is io n may be l o g i c a l l y c o r r e c t y e t be a p o o r d e c is io n in th e l i g h t o f a l l o t h e r f a c t o r s in th e case* sin c e * a s B eard has p o in te d out* two o r more in d iv id u a ls * who a r e e q u a lly w e ll in fo rm ed and p o s s e s s e d o f e q u a lly l o g i c a l m inds may a r r i v e a t d i f f e r e n t c o n c lu s io n s from t h e same s e t o f f a c t s in th e c a s e . 6

S iia rio g A* B eard, A m erican Government and P o l i t i c s (Hew Y ork: The M acm illan Company, 1 9 1 2 ), p . £2.

60

The e x te n t t o w hich a judge ’ s p e r s o n a l view s B£ay in f lu e n c e J u s t i c e was d e m o n stra te d r e c e n t l y in two C hicago C o u rts*

A cco rd in g t o th e P h o en ix [A riz o n a ] G a z e tte , two

d iv o rc e c a s e s w ith s u b s t a n t i a l l y th e same background came t o d i r e c t l y o p p o s ite c o n c lu s io n s .

In th e f i r s t e a s e , th e

p l a i n t i f f (w ife ) so u g h t a d iv o rc e from h e r trap -d ru m m er husband on th e ground t h a t he had sla p p e d h e r .

The case was

t r i e d b e f o r e C i r c u i t Judge P h i l l i p J . F in e g a n , who d e n ie d th e p e t i t i o n .

The c o u r t ’ s d e c is io n amounted s u b s t a n t i a l l y

t o t h i s : t h a t i t n o t o n ly i s a h u sb a n d ’ s l e g a l p r e r o g a t iv e t o s t r i k e h i s w ife b u t t h a t i t i s more o r l e s s h i s d u ty . I t was th e c o u r t ’ s o p in ioi n t h a t a s la p does n o t c o n s t i t u t e c r u e l t y b e c a u se i t i s n o t d a n g e ro u s. i

Going s t i l l f u r t h e r in

s t a t i n g h i s p e r s o n a l view s o f a h u sb a n d ’ s p r e r o g a t i v e s , th e Judge d e c la r e d t h a t **a man may s la p h i s w ife as h a rd a s he w an ts t o i f he d o e s n ’t k i l l h e r . 7 t h e r e would be fe w er d i v o r c e s . ”

I f more w ives w ere s la p p e d ,

In t h e / o t h e r c a se th e p l a i n t i f f (w ife ) so u g h t a v * d iv o rc e b ec au se h e r i r r i t a b l e husband sla p p e d h e r when he became a n g ry b e c a u se she had e x c e lle d him a s an e q u e s t r ia n . T h is ca se came b e f o re S u p e r io r Judge O scar F . N e lso n , a l s o o f C h icag o .

Guided b y th e same law s t h a t o p e ra te d i n th e

® E d i t o r i a l in th e P h o e n ix {Arizona] G a z e tte , F e b ru ­ a r y 2, 1939.

61

f i r s t c a s e , Judge N elso n g ra n te d th e p e t i t i o n f o r d iv o r c e . E is p e r s o n a l view s o f W ife r-s la p p in g a r e d i r e c t l y o p p o s ite t o th o s e o f Judge F in e g a n .

"Any blow t h a t i n f l i c t s p a in i s

c r u e l t y , " s a i d Judge N e lso n , and he c o n tin u e d , t h a t in such $ c a s e s , " th e law p e r m its a d iv o rc e and I alw ays g ra n t i t . " The new spaper comments e d i t o r i a l l y t h a t th e m o tto "E q u a l J u s t i c e f o r a l l " m ight be more a c c u r a te i f m o d ified t o "E qual j u s t i c e t o a l l a p p e a rin g i n th e same c o u r t . "

T h is

same e d i t o r i a l c o n tin u e s : The law , s u p p o s e d ly , a p p li e s w ith e q u a l e f f e c t t o e v e ry i n d i v i d u a l , b u t i t i s som etim es th e p a r t o f wisdom t o p le a d one*s c a s e , where p o s s i b l e , b e f o r e a judge whose p e r s o n a l view s a r e known t o be in o n e 's f a v o r . What one judge condones, a n o th e r condemns, and e s p e c i a l l y i s t h i s t r u e i n th e s e ttle m e n t o f m a r i t a l d i s p u t e s . The sw e e tn e ss o r sh re w ish n e ss o f th e ju d g e 's w ife may make o r b r e a k th e c a s e .9 In Judge C a rd o z o 's a n a l y s i s o f th e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s — t h e f o r c e s t h a t i n f lu e n c e d e c is io n s —he s t a t e s t h a t a judge m ust g e t h i s knowledge from e x p e rie n c e , s tu d y , and r e f l e c t i o n — from l i f e i t s e l f —t o know w hich f a c t o r sh o u ld be th e dom in a t i n g c o n s id e r a tio n i n a r r i v i n g a t a d e c is io n .

10

There a re many who f e e l t h a t once a p e rs o n embarks upon a j u d i c i a l c a r e e r , he sh o u ld become a s o c i a l h e r m it, th e t h e o r y b e in g t h a t a judge sh o u ld be som ething a p a r t from Q 9 10

E d i t o r i a l i n th e P h o e n ix L o c. c i t . S u p ra, p . 55.

A rizo n a

G a z e tte , l o c . c i t .

62 s o c i e t y , L est lie lo s e some o f h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y th ro u g h h i s s o c i a l c o n t a c ts , e s p e c i a l l y i f th o s e c o n ta c ts a r e w ith o th e r la w y e rs .

T h is th e o r y i s n o t c o r r e c t .

I t i s t o be e x p e c te d

t h a t some la w y e rf s be among a ju d g e fs b e s t f r i e n d s ; men o f a p r o f e s s io n te n d t o f r a t e r n i z e w ith each o t h e r .

A judge

s h o u ld , how ever, a v o id such in tim a c ie s w hich m ight r a i s e d o u b ts in th e m inds o f o b s e rv e rs a s t o th e ju d g e* s i m p a r t i a l ­ ity .

He i s e n t i t l e d t o a norm al s o c i a l and p r i v a t e l i f e ,

e x c e p t p e rh a p s t h a t he sh o u ld n o t engage in s o - c a l le d s o c i a l re fo rm m ovements, su ch a s a c t i v i t i e s e i t h e r f o r o r a g a in s t p r o h i b i t i o n , b e c a u se some w e ll-m e a n t p r o p o s a l o f h i s w i l l un­ e x p e c te d ly be to s s e d i n t o th e p o l i t i c a l a re n a w here, most l i k e l y , h i s id e a s w i l l be d i s t o r t e d and s i n i s t e r m o tiv es a t ­ t r i b u t e d t o him w ith th e r e s u l t t h a t b o th he and th e j u d i c ­ i a r y o f w hich he i s a p a r t w i l l s u f f e r from l o s s o f r e s p e c t . A wide a c q u a in ta n c e w ith men In a l l w alks o f l i f e q u a l i f i e s , r a t h e r th a n d i s q u a l i f i e s , a judge f o r h i s w ork. Ho t r u e f r i e n d o f th e ju d g e , w h eth er he be a law y er o r l a y ­ man, w i l l impose on t h a t f r i e n d s h ip t o see k j u d i c i a l f a v o r s . G ran ted t h a t a judge i s g i f t e d w ith a g en e ro u s amount o f s t a b i l i t y —t h a t he I s p o s s e s s e d o f th e s o - c a l le d j u d i c i a l te m p era m e n t--h e w i l l have no d i f f i c u l t y in a v o id in g fa v o rin g h i s f r i e n d s when he s i t s on th e bench, and he w i l l n o t need t o le a n backw ard t o a c c o m p lish t h a t .

Some la w y e rs have m is­

g iv in g s when th e y see a judge h av in g lu n c h o r c h a tti n g w ith

63

th e a t t o r n e y o r an e x p e rt w itn e s s on t h e o th e r s id e o f th e case* o r i f th e op p o sin g c o u n s e l happens t o be a f r i e n d o f th e Judge, b u t th e in s ta n c e s have been c o m p a ra tiv e ly few in w hich a Judge h as shown undue f a v o r i t i s m t o h i s f r ie n d s * P erh a p s t h e m ost f l a g r a n t c a s e s o f t h a t k in d were th o s e w hich w ere d is c lo s e d by th e S p e c ia l S e n a te Committee on I n v e s t i g a ­ t i o n o f B an k ru p tcy and R e c e iv e rs h ip P ro c e e d in g s in U n ited S t a t e s C o u rts*

T h is com m ittee, u n d er th e ch airm an sh ip o f

S e n a to r H enry F. A s h u rs t, o f A riz o n a , h e ld e x te n s iv e h e a rin g s in C a l i f o r n i a d u rin g th e y e a r 1935.

E v id en ce p re s e n te d a t

t h e h e a r in g s d is c lo s e d f a v o r i ti s m t o f r i e n d s and fo rm er lawx p a r t n e r s had b een shown by some Judges o f th e F e d e r a l C o u rt.

11

In com parison w ith th e volume o f J u d i c i a l m a tte r s h andled by th e c o u r ts th ro u g h o u t t h e c o u n try , how ever, such a b u se s have n o t been so num erous.

T h is f a c t i n d i c a t e s t h a t c o m p a ra tiv e ly

few Judges y i e l d t o t h a t s o r t o f te m p ta tio n . At th e f i r s t a n n u a l n a t i o n a l c o n v e n tio n o f th e n a t i o n a l L a w y er's G u ild , w hich was h e ld in W ashington* D. C ., F e b ru a ry 19 t o 22, 1937, a t w hich m eetin g th e G u ild a d o p ted i t s c o n s t i ­ t u t i o n , among o th e r r e s o l u t i o n s , th e f o llo w in g was adopted w ith r e s p e c t t o th e p r a c t i c e o f some Judges o f showing f a v o r -

H e a rin g s b e f o re a S p e c ia l Com m ittee on I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f B an k ru p tcy and R e c e iv e rs h ip P ro c e e d in g s in U n ited S t a te s C o u rts , U n ited S t a t e s S e n a te , S e v e n ty - th ir d C ongress, Second S e s s io n (4 p a r t s . Wabhmggton, D. C. U n ited S t a t e s Government P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , 1 9 3 4 ), e t p a s s im *

64

i t i s m in t h e i r ap p o in tm e n ts o f r e f e r e e s , t r u s t e e s , r e c e i v e r s , e t c .: RESOLUTION RELATING TO JUDICIAL PATRONAGE: W hereas: ( I j I n th e co u rse o f th e a d m in i s tr a t io n o f j u s t i c e t h e r e a r e numerous a d m in is tr a tio n and s e m i - j u d i c i a l f u n c tio n s w hich a r e c u s to m a rily d e le g a te d by th e c o u r ts t o a tto r n e y s o r o th e r p e r s o n s , com pensated by th e p a r t i e s t o th e p ro c e e d in g s o r o u t o f t h e fu n d s o r e s t a t e s in v o lv e d . (2) I t i s a m a tte r o f common knowledge t h a t th e s e a p p o in tm e n ts a r e o f te n d i c t a t e d by p o l i t i c a l c o n s id e r­ a t i o n s : Now, t h e r e f o r e , Be i t R e so lv e d : (1 ) We recommend t h a t W herever p o s s ib le a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c ie s be e s ta b l i s h e d t o p erfo rm such su ch f u n c tio n s whose p e r s o n n e l s h a l l be chosen by com­ p e t i t i v e e i v i l - s e r v i c e e x a m in a tio n s , (2 ) We recommend t h a t in a l l o th e r in s ta n c e s such f u n c tio n s s h a l l be p erform ed by la w y e rs , o r o th e r s p e c i a l l y q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n s , chosen in r o t a t i o n from l i s t s and p a n e ls open t o a l l a p p l i c a n t s m eetin g th e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s r e q u ir e d f o r th e v a r io u s f u n c tio n s t o Be p e rfo rm e d .12 In th e s t a t e o f A riz o n a , in bank l i q u i d a t i o n s , th e S t a t e B anking D epartm ent a c t s a s c o n s e rv a to r o f th e a s ­ s e t s and i t h as saved th e d e p o s ito r s a v a s t amount o f mohey i n h a n d lin g th e l i q u i d a t i o n s a s compared w ith th e o r d in a r y c o u r t- a p p o in te d t r u s t ee£s o r r e c e i v e r *s l i q u i d a t i o n .

S p e c ia l

a d m i n i s tr a t i v e a g e n c ie s l i k e t h a t , e x p e rt in t h e i r f i e l d , would g r e a t l y a id t h e j u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a t io n o f j u s t i c e in 12

H e a rin g s b e f o r e th e Com mittee on th e J u d i c i a r y , U n ited S t a t e s S e n a te , S e v e n t y - f i f t h C o n g ress, F i r s t S e s s io n , (6 p a r t s . W ashington: U n ited S t a t e s Government P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , 1 9 3 7 ], P a r t I , p . 79,

65

h a n d lin g d i s t r e s s e d b u s in e s s e s w hich la n d in co u rt* Customs and u t i l i t y and th e a c c e p te d s ta n d a r d s o f r i g h t conduct a r e m entioned b y J u s t i c e C ardozo a s f o r c e s 15 w hich in f lu e n c e a ju d g e 's d e c is io n s * ”The c o u rt i s n o t an o rg an ism d i s s o c i a t e d from th e c o n d itio n s and h i s t o r y o f th e tim e s i n w hich i t e x i s t s , ” a c c o rd in g t o C h a rle s W arren, who s a id : I t [ t h e c o u r tj does n o t fo rm u la te and d e l i v e r i t s o p in io n s i n a l e g a l vacuum. I t s ju d g e s a r e n o t a b s t r a c t and im p e rso n a l o r a c le s , b u t a r e men whose view s a r e n e c e s s a r i l y , th o u g h by no c o n sc io u s i n t e n t , a f f e c t e d by i n h e r i t a n c e , e d u c a tio n and environm ent and by th e im pact o f h i s t o r y p a s t and p r e s e n t . ^ The o u ts ta n d in g example o f th e c o n s id e r a tio n o f u t i l i t y a s th e b a s i s o f a d e c is io n i s r e f l e c t e d in th e U n ited S t a te s Supreme C o u r t 's l e g a l - t e n d e r case d e c is i o n s . In th e f i r s t o f 15 th e s e c a s e s , Hepburn v . G risw o ld , th e C ourt h e ld u n c o n s t i tu ­ t i o n a l t h e A cts o f C ongress w hich p ro v id e d t h a t n o n - i n t e r e s t b e a rin g U n ited S t a t e s n o te s sh o u ld be la w fu l money and l e g a l te n d e r i n paym ent o f a l l d e b ts , p u b lic and p r i v a t e , w ith in t h e U n ite d S t a t e s .

Had t h a t d e c is io n b een p e r m itte d t o

s ta n d , I t would have c o m p le te ly u p s e t th e f i n a n c i a l o p e r a tio n s o f th e G overnm ent.

P r e s i d e n t G rant th e n a p p o in te d two new

S u p ra , p . 55. 14

C h a rle s W arren, The Supreme C ourt in U n ited S t a t e s H is to r y (2 v o l . , B o sto n ; L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 19 2 6 ), Y o l. 1, p . 2. 15 Hepburn v . G risw o ld > 8 W allace SOS.

66 j u s t i c e s w ith a u t i l i t a r i a n p o in t o f view t o th e Supreme C o u rt, and w ith in f o u r te e n months from th e o r i g i n a l d e c is io n t h e Supreme C ourt r e v e r s e d i t s e l f , t h i s r e v e r s a l h e in g in th e c a se o f Knox v . Lee*

16

B oth o f th e new j u s t i c e s who

b ro u g h t ab o u t t h i s r e v e r s a l,, Edwin M. S ta n to n , and Jo sep h P . B ra d le y , w ere s o - c a l l e d r a i l r o a d a tt o r n e y s and n a t u r a l l y were moved b y c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e co n seq u en ces upon th e g o v ern ­ ment Ts f i n a n c i a l o p e r a tio n s *

E rn e s t S u th e rla n d B a te s , lookO

In g a t th e d e c is io n from a u t i l i t a r i a n p o in t o f view , in th e f o llo w in g s ta te m e n t j u s t i f i e s P r e s id e n t G r a n t's s u b te r f u g e in "p a c k in g " th e c o u r t t o o b ta in th e r e s u l t s : * * . B u t, r e g a r d l e s s o f th e p o s s i b l e b i a s o f th e new J u s t i c e s i n f a v o r o f th e r a i l r o a d s , th e c o n s t i ­ t u t i o n a l i t y o f th e second d e c is io n has n e v e r been a s s a i l e d n o r i s i t d e n ie d t h a t i t e s ta b l i s h e d th e c u rre n c y on a w o rk able b a s i s , gave C ongress a h ig h ly n e c e s s a r y power o v e r i t , and b e n e f i te d th e mass o f A m erican C itiz e n s * 17 "The Supreme C ourt f e e l s th e to u c h o f p u b li c o p in io n ," s a y s B ry ce, "O p in io n i s s tr o n g e r in A m erica th a n anywhere 18 e l s e in th e w o rld , and ju d g es a r e o n ly m en." J u s t i c e O liv e r W endell Holmes, l i k e Judge C ardozo, 16

Knox v* L ee, IS W allace 457.

17

E rn e s t S u th e rla n d B a te s , The S to ry o f th e Supreme C ourt ( I n d i a n a p o l is : The B o b b s -M e rrill Company, 19&6), p p • 1 8 4 -8 5 . 18

James B ry ce, The Am erican Commonwealth (2 v o l* , new e d i t i o n . New Y ork: The M acm illan Company, 1 9 2 2 ), V o l. I , p . 27 4 .

67

was m o tiv a te d by s o c i a l and economic c o n d itio n s i n a r r i v i n g a t h i s d e c is io n s *

T h is i s p o in te d out by D orsey R ic h a rd so n :

He J u s t i c e Holmes h as e v e r em phasized e x p e rie n c e , th e c o n d itio n s o f t h e moment, a s th e g r e a t p r a c t i c a l s o u re e o f la w . In h i s w r i t i n g s , he h as adduced h i s ­ t o r i c a l exam ples o f th e changes w rought i n th e law by s o c i a l and econom ic c o n d itio n s * The law t o him has been a l i v i n g t h i n g , s h a p in g I t s e l f t o m eet th e needs o f s o c i e t y , - n e v e r a dead hand l a i d upon th e p r e s e n t . The w orking o u t o f a l o g i c a l th e o r y o f ju ris p r u d e n c e h as n o t been h i s t a s k . H is a c ti v e l i f e h as been con­ s t r u c t i v e , m oulding t h e e x i s t i n g law i n t o acco d e a p p l i ­ c a b le t o p r e s e n t p ro b le m s, and a tte m p tin g t o change th o s e p a r t s o f t h e law w hich have become a tro p h ie d * Xn sp e a k in g o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r th e U n ite d S t a t e s Supreme C o u rt, W arren H. P i l l s b u r y say s t h a t s t r o n g e r e f f o r t s w i l l be made t o d e te rm in e " th e tem peram ent and p ro b a b le a t t i t u d e upon economic and s o c i a l q u e s tio n s ” and t o r e j e c t th o s e whose p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l view s a r e o u t o f harm ony. 20 One o f th e most p ro fo u n d s tu d e n ts o f o u r Supreme C o u rt, th e l a t e A lb e r t J . B e v e rid g e , fo rm e rly s e n a to r from I n d ia n a , i n s i s t e d t h a t th e j u s t i c e s must be more s ta te s m e n th a n la w y e rs , t h a t t h e y must have a co n tem p o rary m ind, n o t one t h a t i s " p ic k le d In p r e c e d e n t s .”

S peaking o f th e need o f

J u s t i c e s w ith a f r e s h o u tlo o k , B ev erid g e comments: The c h a r a c t e r o f members o f th e Supreme C ourt i s v i t a l t o th e perm anence o f A m erican i n s t i t u t i o n s — 19 D orsey R ic h a rd so n , C o n s t i t u t i o n a l D o c trin e s o f J u s t i c e O liv e r W endell Holmes (B a ltim o re : The Johns H opkins P r e s s , 1 9 2 4 J , p p . 1 1 -1 6 . 20 W arren H. P i l l s b u r y , ”U. S. Supreme C ourt and t h e S e n a t e .” The Summons, I I (Autumn, 1 9 3 0 ), 3 .

68 n o t t h e i r m o ral c h a r a c te r a lo n e , h u t a ls o t h e i r I n t e l ­ l e c t u a l s t a t u r e , t h e i r v i s i o n , t h e i r o u tlo o k on l i f e , t h e i r know ledge o f h i s t o r y , t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y w ith p r e s e n t c o n d itio n s and d e v e lo p in g te n d e n c ie s , t h e i r s y m p a th e tic u n d e rs ta n d in g o f human n a tu r e and I t s r e a c t l o n s . 2^ In c o n s id e r in g th e d e s i r a b l e q u a l i t i e s o f th e J u d i c i a l tem p eram en t, th e n e g a tiv e s id e o r t h e u n d e s ir a b le t r a i t s sh o u ld n o t be o v e rlo o k e d •

O c c a s io n a lly , h e a d lin e s a p p e a r in

th e n ew sp ap er, su ch a s "Ju d g es S hout a t Each O ther in S a n ity C a s e ;" in g ;"

22

23

"Ju d g es B a t t l e f o r C o n tro l o f Payne S a n ity H earand "Odor o f L iq u o r in a C ourtiroom ."

2 ^,

These were th e h e a d lin e s i n t h e d i s g r a c e f u l i n c i d e n t s c o n n e cted w ith th e c o n tr o v e r s y betw een Judge H arry P . S e w e ll and Judge Ruben S . Schm idt in a Los A ngeles C ourt d u rin g th e i n s a n i t y h e a r in g s o f L o u is Rude P a y n e .

"A scen e o f u tm o st

c o n fu s io n , u n p a r a l le le d in l o c a l l e g a l h i s t o r y , p r e v a i l e d , " a c c o rd in g t o th e news ite m .

S e w e ll* s rem oval had been o r d e r ­

ed b y Judge F l e t c h e r Bowren, in ch arg e o f th e c r im in a l c o u r ts d iv is io n .

P r e s i d i n g Judge F ran k C. C o l l i e r had ch arg ed Judge

S e w e ll w ith h a v in g been i n t o x ic a t e d on th e b e n c h . 21

"Such i n -

Homer Cummings, S ta te m e n t b e f o r e th e S e n a te Commit­ t e e , H e a rin g s b e f o r e th e Committee on th e j u d i c i a r y , U n ite d S t a t e s S e n a te , S e v e n t y - f i f t h C o n g ress, F i r s t S e s s io n , o p . c i t . , p . 10. 22 Hews ite m in th e P h o en ix ^A rizona]! G a z e tte , A ugust 2 , 1934. 23 Hews ite m in th e A riz o n a R e p u b lic jp h o e n ix 7 , A ugust 2 , 1934. E d i t o r i a l i n th e A riz o n a R e p u b lic V phoenlxl , A ugust 4 , 1934.

69

c ld e n ts a s •th is alm o st r e c o n c i l e s one t o th e J u d i c i a l r e c a l l , " s a y s th e e d i t o r i a l in th e A riz o n a R e p u b lic , "b u t f o r t u n a t e l y 25 su c h i n c i d e n t s a s t h i s one a r e e x c e e d in g ly r a r e . " I l l - t e m p e r and bad m anners a l s o im p a ir r e s p e c t f o r th e c o u rt*

Most Judges a r e c o u rte o u s g e n tle m e n .

Som etim es I t

becomes n e c e s s a r y f o r a Judge t o re m o n s tra te w ith c o u n s e l o r p e rs o n s i n th e co u rtro o m , b u t he sh o u ld do i t w ith c o n s id e r ­ a t i o n and c o u r te s y and th e r e b y a v o id a r o u s in g r e s e n tm e n t,

If

a Judge a c t s ro u g h ly and d i c t a t o r i a l l y , c o u n s e l f e e l h u m il­ i a t e d and I n s u l t e d ; w itn e s s e s , J u r o r s , s p e c t a t o r s , and p a r t i e s t o th e ca se f e e l t h a t Judges a r e p e t t y t y r a n t s Imbued w ith s e I f - im p o r t anc e . At th e c o n v e n tio n o f th e N a tio n a l L a w y e r's G u ild ,

26

th e fo llo w in g r e s o l u t i o n was ad o p ted w ith r e s p e c t t o th e p r a c t i c e o f some Judges who w ie ld th e " b ig s t i c k " o f i n d i s ­ c r im i n a t e l y im posing f i n e s f o r contem pt upon a t t o r n e y s who p r a c t i c e in t h e i r c o u r t; RESOLUTION RELATING TO POWER OF COURTS TO PUNISH ATTORNEYS FOR CONTEMPT. W hereas: (1 ) The power t o p u n is h la w y e rs f o r contem pt f o r t h e i r a c t i o n s in c o u r t i s s u b je c t t o and h as been th e o c c a s io n f o r g r e a t ab u se b e c a u se o f th e f a c t s t h a t th e Judge m aking th e c h a rg e a l s o s i t s i n Judgment upon i t , and b ec au se h i s

A riz o n a R e p u b lic [p h o e n ix ] , l o c . c i t . £6

S u p ra , p . 60.

70

s ta te m e n t o f t h e c a se I s n o t s u b je c t t o q u e s tio n by th e accu sed a t t o r n e y . (2) Such a r b i t r a r y power le a d s t o i n t im i d a ti o n o f a t t o r n e y s , o f te n p r e v e n ts th e p ro p e r p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e i r c l i e n t ' s ca se and i s n o t e s s e n t i a l t o th e con­ d u c t o f t h e c o u r t p ro c e e d in g s : How, t h e r e f o r e , be i t R e s o lv e d . A com m ittee be a p p o in te d t o s tu d y m ethods o f l i m i t a t i o n o f th e power o f c o u r ts t o p u n is h a t t o r ­ n ey s f o r contem pt b e c a u se o f t h e i r a c ti o n s in c o u r t, so a s t o p r o h i b i t th e judge m aking th e a c c u s a tio n s from s i t t i n g a s th e t r i e r , t o g iv e th e a t t o r n e y an o ppor­ t u n i t y t o d is p ro v e th e a c c u s a tio n , and t o p ro v id e su ch o th e r s a fe g u a r d s a g a in s t a r b i t r a r y a c ti o n a s may be a p p r o p r i a t e *^ 7 I n one in s ta n c e coming u n d e r th e p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a tio n o f th e I n v e s t i g a t o r , a S u p e r io r - Cout t judge in A riz o n a im pos­ ed a f i n e o f #100 upon an a t t o r n e y f o r a p p e a rin g a few min­ u te s l a t e fo r t r i a l ,

h a t e r , when some p r e s s u r e had been

b ro u g h t t o b e a r upon t h i s ju d g e , and a f t e r he had h J a rd th e ex cu se o f f e r e d by th e a t t o r n e y and le a r n e d t h a t he u n e x p e c te d ­ l y had b een summoned t o t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t, and t h a t th e s l i g h t d e la y was caused by h i s making a rra n g e m e n ts w ith th e F e d e r a l Judge w ith r e s p e c t t o th e m a tte r p en d in g i n t h a t c o u rt f o r a n o th e r c l i e n t o f th e same a t t o r n e y , t h e S u p e rIo r-C o u rt judge r e m i t t e d th e f i n e b u t n o t w ith o u t a f a c e - s a v in g a tte m p t b y d e c la r in g In open c o u r t, in s u b s ta n c e , t h a t h i s c o u rt re c o g ­ n i z e s no s u p e r i o r i t y i n t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t . A r a t h e r r e c e n t i n c id e n t w hich aro u se d much re s e n tm e n t a g a in s t a t y r a n n i c a l judge was th e reb u k e and t h r e a t s o f a H e a rin g s b e f o r e th e Committee on th e J u d i c i a r y , U n ite d S t a t e s S e n a te , S e v e n t y - f i f t h C o n g ress, o p . c i t . , p . 79.

71

M u n ic ip a l Judge o f Los A ngeles t o a k in d e r g a r te n te a c h e r who a p p e ared In h i s c o u r t, d re s s e d In s l a c k s , t o t e s t i f y in a b u r g la r y c a s e .

The J u d g e 's d e n u n c ia tio n , a c c o rd in g t o th e

n ew spaper, went l i k e t £ i s : The l a s t tim e you were i n t h i s c o u rt d re s s e d a s you a r e now [ I n s l a c k s ] and r e c l i n i n g on y o u r n e c k on th e b a c k o f th e c h a i r , you drew more a t t e n t i o n from sp e c ­ t a t o r s , p r i s o n e r s , and c o u rt a t t a c h e s , th a n th e l e g a l b u s in e s s a t h a n d . You-were re q u e s te d t o r e t u r n in g arb a c c e p ta b le t o c o u rt room p ro c e d u re . I f you i n s i s t on w ea rin g s la c k s a g a in you w i l l n o t be p re v e n te d from t e s t i f y i n g b e c a u se t h a t would h in d e r t h e a d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s tic e . But be p re p a re d t o be p u n ish e d a c c o rd in g t o law f o r th e contem pt o f c o u r t . 28 A p p a re n tly t h a t Judge i s so o u t - o f - s t e p w ith s o c i e t y t h a t he was n o t aware t h a t s la c k s had become a c c e p te d a p p a re l f o r women f o r s t r e e t w e a r.

The second f a i l u r e o f t h i s Judge

i s t h a t th e d i g n i t y o f any c o u rt I s r e p r e s e n te d l a r g e l y in th e man who s i t s on th e bench r a t h e r th a n by th e p e o p le who 29 come b e f o r e I t . An e d i t o r i a l in th e A riz o n a R e p u b lic c h a l­ le n g e s th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t o f a Judge t o h o ld an in d iv ­ i d u a l f o r contem pt o f h i s c b u rt m e re ly b e c a u se he d is a p p ro v e s p e r s o n a l ly o f th e c lo th in g worn by th e p e rs o n , where t h e r e I s n e i t h e r a la c k o f c l o t h i n g n o r an atm o sp h ere o f In d ecen cy ab o u t i t a s i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . The e d i t o r s u g g e s ts t h a t I f t h e Judge was w ith in h i s

Hew ite m In th e P h o en ix ^A rizo n a! G a z e tte , November 15, 1958. 29

E d i t o r i a l In th e A riz o n a R e p u b lic jjp h o e n ia j, November 17, 1938.

72 c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p o w ers, th e n he could a l s o h o ld in d iv id u a ls in contem pt b e c a u se he does n o t approve of* t h e i r h a i r c u t , o r b ec au se he f i n d s some o th e r p e c u l i a r i t y ab o u t t h e i r p e rso n o r t h e i r c lo th in g d is a g r e e a b le t o him .

T h is same e d i t o r i a l

comments f & r th e r : We s u s p e c t t h a t th e m ales in h i s c o u rt room p a id v e ry l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n t o th e te a c h e r in h e r s la c k s u n t i l th e judge c a ll e d a t t e n t i o n t o th e f a c t t h a t she was w ea rin g * p a n t s .t I f she had a p p e a re d in a s h o r t , t i g h t s k i r t , w ith a lomg expanse o f good lo o k in g le g s w rapped in s h e e r h o s ie r y showing from ab o u t th e knee t o th e shoe t o p , e v e ry m ale in th e p la c e in c lu d in g h i s h o n o r, t h e * je d g e t , would have b een so u n d ig n i­ f i e d a s t o a tte m p t t o g e t more th a n e y e f u l o f th e d i s p l a y . 30 A n o th er d i s p l a y o f s t i l l g r e a t e r j u d i c i a l a s i n i n i t y was th e r e c e n t ca se in New York in w hich a woman judge s e n t a woman w itn e s s home b e c a u se she had u sed l i p s t i c k and makeup b e f o r e coming t o c o u r t .

The woman judge t o l d th e w itn e s s t o

go home f i r s t and wash h e r fa c e ..

I t seems t h a t th e woman

ju d g e u s e s no c o s m e tic s , b u t t h a t f a c t does n o t g iv e h e r th e l e g a l n o r m o ral r i g h t t o sa y t h a t o th e r women who a p p e a r in 31 h e r c o u rt s h a l l n o t u se th em . F o r t u n a te ly , th e s e in s ta n c e s o f a r b i t r a r y u s e , o r t o be more e x a c t, th e a r b i t r a r y m isuse o f th e power o f t h e c o u rt to p u n is h f o r co n tem p t, a r e n o t num erous, b u t th e p u b l i c i t y g iv e n t o each such in s ta n c e does 30

E d i t o r i a l in th e A rizo n a R e p u b lic

fe h o e n ix j , l o c .

c it. 31 E d i t o r i a l in th e A rizo n a R e p u b lic fp h o e n ix j , November 14, 1938.

73

much more t o t e a r down r e s p e c t f o r th e c o u r ts th a n th e th o u s ­ an d s upon th o u sa n d s o f c a s e s o f norm al d i g n i f i e d c o u r t proQ ce d u re .

T o le ra n c e and p a tie n c e a r e th e p o s i t i v e q u a l i t i e s

la c k in g i n t h e Los A n g eles Judge and i n t h e Hew York Judge i n th e s e two in s ta n c e s * Courage i s a b s o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l t o th e makeup o f a good ju d g e , b e c a u se i n n e a r l y e v e ry la w s u it someone i s d i s ­ p le a s e d w ith th e r e s u l t s and in some c a se s everyone i s d i s ­ p le a s e d w ith th e Ju d g e; and i f he i s s e n s i t i v e t o th e d i s ­ a p p ro v a l o f o t h e r s , he i s tem peram ent l y u n f i t f o r t h e p o s i ­ tio n .

He m ust have th e courage t o f o llo w h i s own c o n sc ie n c e

even i n th e fa c e o f p o p u la r d is a p p r o v a l w hich may be en g e n d er­ ed by t h e n e w sp a p e rs. In d is c u s s in g s i t u a t i o n s in w hich a ju d g e *s own id e a s o f r i g h t and wrong c o n f l i c t w ith th o s e o f t h e community in w hich he p r e s i d e s , Judge Cardozo c r i t i c i z e s th o s e who h o ld t h a t t h e judge sh o u ld be g u id ed by h i s own n o t i o n s : . . . a ju d g e , I t h i n k , would e r r i f he were t o im pose upon th e community a s a r u l e o f l i f e h i s own i d i o s y n c r a s i e s o f conduct o r b e l i e f . L et u s su p p o se, f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n , a judge who lo o k ed upon t h e a t r e g o in g a s a s i n . Would he be d o in g r i g h t i f , in a f i e l d where th e r u l e o f lawxwas s t i l l u n s e t t l e d , he p e r m itte d t h i s c o n v ic tio n , th o u g h known t o be in c o n f l i c t w ith th e dom inant s ta n d a rd o f r i g h t co n d u c t, t o g o v ern h i s d e c is io n ? My own n o tio n i s t h a t he would be u n d er a d u ty t o conform t o th e a c c e p te d s t a n d ­ a r d o f th e community, t h e m o rals o f th e tim e s . B enjam in H. C ardozo, o p . c i t . p p . 1 0 7 -8 .

74 Z g c h a ria h C h a f f e e ,J r ., P r o f e s s o r o f law , H arv ard Law S c h o o l, sp ea k s ab o u t J u s t i c e O liv e r W endell Holmes* ad m ir­ a b le q u a l i t y o f h a v in g b een a b le t o d iv o rc e h i s own p e r s o n a l c o n v ic tio n s on p o l i t i c a l l i f e from h i s j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s . M r.Q fih ffse p o i n t s o u t how J u s t i c e Holmes, in h i s n o n - le g a l w r i t i n g s , v ig o r o u s ly q u e s tio n e d th e w o r k a b i li ty o f s o c ia lis m and t h a t t h a t th e s e w r i t i n g s i n d i c a t e c l e a r l y t h a t i f J u s t i c e Holmes had b een a l e g i s l a t o r , he would have opposed many s t a t u t e s , w hich as a ju d g e , he r e f u s e d t o d e c la r e u n c o n s t irzrz

tu tio n a l. T here a r e many l e s s e s s e n t i a l q u a l i t i e s o r v i r t u e s d e s i r a b l e in more o r l e s s d e g re e in th e makeup o f th e i d e a l ju d g e — f o r i n s t a n c e , a p ro p e r se n se o f humor w ith o u t f a ­ c e t io u s n e s s ; firm n e s s when th e s i t a t i o n c a l l s f o r i t ; punc­ t u a l i t y i n c o n d u c tin g c o u r t b u s in e s s ; accom m odating t o a re a s o n a b le d e g re e th o s e whose b u s in e s s b r in g s them b e f o re th e c o u r t; and a s y m p a th e tic u n d e rs ta n d in g b u t n o t t o th e d e g re e o f d im in is h in g c o u ra g e . The e f f o r t s o f F ran k Murphy, now A s s o c ia te J u s t i c e o f th e Supreme C o u rt, t o e s t a b l i s h th e m e rit sy stem in th e f e d e r a l c o u r ts w h ile he was U n ited S t a t e s A tto rn e y -G e n e ra l, d e s e rv e s commendation an d , i f h i s e f f o r t s a r e c o n tin u e d by

53

Z& chariah C h a f f e e , J r . , " L ib e r a l T rends in th e Supreme C o u rt." C u rre n t H is to r y , XOCV (December, 1 9 3 1 ), 338.

75

h i s s u c c e s s o r s , h i s r e p u t a t i o n w i l l have been; made and h i s name w i l l go down i n h i s t o r y .

N a tu r a l ly he e n c o u n te re d t h e

o p p o s itio n o f t h e p atro n a g e -m in d e d p o l i t i c i a n s .

Homer Cum­

m ings, Mr. M urphyr s p r e d e c e s s o r , had s t a r t e d th e h o u s e c le a n ­ in g , and Mr. Murphy c a r r i e d i t on w ith g r e a t e r i n t e n s i t y .

Mr.

Murphy exam ined ju d g es and d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y s f o r p ro o f o r d is p r o o f o f t h e i r com petence and h ig h s t a n d a r d s .

He made a

d i g e s t o f c a s e s p en d in g a t t h a t tim e in th e f e d e r a l c o u r ts and in t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y s r o f f i c e s w ith a view t o a s c e r t a i n ­ in g th e e x te n t and th e re a s o n s f o r d e l a y s .

A lso , he prom oted

th e id e a o f s e c u r in g y ounger men w ith d e m o n stra te d i d e a l s o f p u b lic s e r v i c e f o r th e ju d g e s h ip s and th e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y 34 o ffic e s . The ap p o in tm en t o f W illiam 0. D ouglas t o th e Supreme C ourt o f th e U n ited S t a t e s t o su cceed J u s t i c e L o u is D. B ran d e i s , who r e t i r e d , i s i n c o n fo rm ity w ith th e tr e n d t o s e c u re younger men who have d e m o n stra te d t h e i r f i t n e s s f o r p u b lic s e r v ic e a s a c a r e e r .

Judge D ouglas was f o r t y y e a rs o ld a t

th e tim e o f h i s a p p o in tm e n t.

He had been chairm an o f th e

S e c u r i t i e s and Exchange Commission s in c e 1956, in w hich c a p a c ity he had ac co m p lish ed much t o p re v e n t m a n ip u la tio n o f th e s to c k m a rk e t.

He had r i s e n from h ig h -s c h o o l te a c h e r t o

34 E d i t o r i a l i n th e P h o en ix [A rizona] G a z e tte , A p r il 10, 1939.

76 p r o f e s s o r o f law a t T a le , th e n c e t o th e S e c u r ity and Exchange Com mission, and l a t e r t o th e Supreme C ourt o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .

F or t h r e e y e a rs he c o lla b o r a te d w ith t h e D epartm ent

o f Commerce i n b a n k ru p tc y s t u d i e s . on b a n k ru p tc y la w .

He i s c o n sid e re d an e x p e rt

Such i s th e background o f one o f t h e l a t e

a p p o in te e s t o th e Supreme C ourt by P r e s id e n t R o o s e v e lt. F ran k Murphy, i n h i s a tte m p t t o p u r i f y t h e f e d e r a l c o u r ts d u rin g h i s a d m i n i s tr a ti o n a s A tto rn e y -G e n e ra l o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s , a tta c k e d th e te n d e n c y o f some Judges t o pay o f f p o l i t i c a l d e b ts by showing f a v o r i ti s m in th e b a n k ru p tc y m a tte r s t h a t Oame b e f o r e them .

The P ho en ix

A riz o n a

G a z e tte

comments e d i t o r i a l l y : W hile o n ly a c o m p a ra tiv e ly few c o u r ts have had t h e i r h o n e s ty o p en ly q u e s tio n e d , t h e i r number i s s u f f i c i e n t t o make many p e rs o n s s u s p ic io u s o f th e e n t i r e system * Mr. Murphy*s e f f o r t s t o weed o u t a l l Judges and f e d e r a l a tto r n e y s : e x c e p t th o s e o f u n q u e stio n e d h o n e s ty and a b i l i t y sh o u ld have th e e n t h u s i a s t i c en d o rse m en t, n o t o n ly o f th e p u b l i c , b u t o f a l l th e th o u sa n d s o f h o n e st o f f i c i a l s In th e f e d e r a l J u d i c i a r y . BTo i n s t i t u t i o n can be g r e a t e r th a n th e p e r s o n n e l b eh in d I t ; n e i t h e r can any J u d i c i a l sy stem be s tr o n g e r th a n i t s t r i a l Ju d g es.

Even th o u g h a J u d i c i a l sy stem h as a s tr o n g c o u r t, o r

c o u r t s , o f a p p e a ls , s t i l l t h e y n e v e r can undo a l l th e e r r o r s o f th e t r i a l Ju d g e s.

The c o r r e c t i o n o f th e t r i a l c o u r t 's e r ­

r o r s b y th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls w i l l n o t com pensate f o r th e harm, c o n f u s io n , and i n j u s t i c e t h a t r e s u l t s from an In c o m p e te n t, weak, o r p r e j u d i c i a l t r i a l Ju d g e. 35 E d i t o r i a l in th e P h o en ix [A riz o n a ! G a z e tte , A p r il 2 6, 1 939. ^

CHAPTER IT

SELECTING JUDGES BT POPULAR TOTE— THE METHOD USED IN ARIZONA I f we assum e t h a t th e p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s o f th e "ideal** Judge can be a g re e d upon, th e n e x t p ro b lem i s t o d e te rm in e w hich m ethod o f s e l e c t i n g Judges w i l l be b e s t t o keep th e b en ch f i l l e d w ith Judges o f t h a t ty p e* The m ethods o f s e l e c t i n g Judges now in u se may be d iv id e d i n t o two m ajo r g ro u p s: (1) th e e l e c t i v e m ethod—t h a t is ,, e l e c t i n g t h e Judges b y p o p u la r v o te th e same a s e l e c t i n g o th e r p u b lic o f f i c i a l s ;

(2} th e a p p o in tiv e m ethod— o f w hich

t h e r e a r e a c o n s id e r a b le number o f v a r i e t i e s and c o m b in a tio n s. In A riz o n a t h e e l e c t i v e m ethod i s u s e d .

C a n d id a te s

f o r a l l J u d i c i a l o f f i c e s a r e nom inated f i r s t In p a r t y p rim a­ r i e s in t h e same m anner a s c a n d id a te s f o r o th e r p o l i t i c a l o ffic e .

C a n d id a te s f o r th e Supreme C ourt must f i l e a nomi­

n a t i n g p e t i t i o n w ith t h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e .

The law p r o ­

v id e s t h a t : Such n o m in a tio n p a p e rs s h a l l be s ig n e d , , , b y a number o f q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r s e q u a l t o a t l e a s t one p e r c e n t o f t h e v o te s o f th e p a r t y o f su c h c a n d id a te in a t l e a s t t h r e e c o u n tie s in th e s t a t e b u t n o t l e s s th a n one p e r c e n t n o r more th a n t a p p e r c e n t o f th e t o t a l v o te o f h i s p a r t y in th e s t a t e .

The b a s i s o f p e rc e n ta g e in each ca se s h a l l be th e v o te o f t h e p a r t y f o r g o v ern o r a t th e l a s t p re c e d in g

78

g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n a t w hich a g o v e rn o r was e l e c t e d .

1

C a n d id a te s f o r th e S u p e rio r C ourt Ju d g e sh ip s m ust f i l e a n o m in a tin g p e t i t i o n w ith t h e c l e r k o f th e board: o f s u p e r­ v i s o r s in th e co u n ty i n w hich th e c a n d id a te se e k s th e e le c tio n * H is p e t i t i o n must c o n ta in th e s ig n a t u r e o f a t l e a s t t h r e e p e r c e n t o f th e p a r t y v o te i n h i s co u n ty , b u t n o t more th a n t e n p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l v o te o f th e p a r t y d e s ig n a te d in t h a t c o u n ty .

£

The b a s i s o f p e rc e n ta g e s h a l l be th e same a s men­

t i o n e d in th e p re c e d in g s e c tio n f o r Supreme- C ourt J u s t i c e s . The u s u a l p ro c e d u re o f c a n v a s s e rs s o l i c i t i n g s i g n a t u r e s t o n o m in a tin g p e t i t i o n s by t h e i r s t r e e t c o r n e r and d o o r-to - d o o r s o l i c i t a t i o n s i s n o t d i g n i f i e d u n d e r t h e m ost f a v o r a b le con­ d i t i o n s ; and when i t comes t o th e n o m in a tin g p e t i t i o n o f a Judge on th e bench* e s p e c i a l l y a su p rem e-C o u rt J u s tic e * th e s e s o l i c i t a t i o n s become a lm o st a m ockery o f o u r t r a d i t i o n a l re s p e c t fo r th e J u d ic ia ry . A f te r th e p rim a ry e l e c t i o n in A rizona* t h e names o f th e s u c c e s s f u l c a n d id a te s f o r Ju d g e sh ip s a r e p la c e d on th e b a l l o t a t th e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n w ith o u t p a r t y d e s ig n a tio n ; however* th e d e m o c ra tic nom inees see t h a t t h e i r p a r t y a f f i l ­ i a t i o n s a r e w e ll a d v e r t i s e d b e f o re th e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n because* in most in s ta n c e s * s e c u rin g th e d e m o c ra tic n o m in a tio n

^ R ev ised Code o f A riz o n a * 19£8, S e c tio n 1£77. £

Loc. c i t .

79

in A riz o n a means e l e c t i o n in November. In a n a tio n -w id e s u rv e y made by th e A m erican B ar A sso­ c i a t i o n Ts Committee on J u d i c i a l S e l e c t i o n and T en u re, a c c o rd ­ in g t o th e co m m ltte et s r e p o r t t o th e s i x t y - f i r s t a n n u a l m eetin g o f t h e A s s o c ia tio n h e ld a t C le v e la n d , O hio, J u ly 25 -2 9 , 1938, th e r e s u lts r c o b ta in e d i n A riz o n a by th e e l e c t i v e method a r e r a t e d "g o o d ."

The com m ittee*s r e p o r t on A riz o n a i s as f o llo w s :

R e s u lts good. R a re ly i s th e re , any e f f o r t t o d is p la c e incum bent J u d g e s . In most c o u n tie s D em o cratic nom ina­ t i o n I s e q u iv a le n t t o e l e c t i o n . However, in some coun­ t i e s Incum bent R e p u b lic a n s r e p e a t e d l y a r e e l e c t e d .^ T h is same c o m m itte e -re p o rt d e t a i l s a t le n g th th e r e ­ s u l t s o b ta in e d i n o th e r s t a t e s and th e method o f s e l e c t i o n used.

To e v a lu a te t h e s e m ethods i s t h e p u rp o se o f t h i s p a r t

o f t h i s s tu d y .

I t I s s i g n i f i c a n t t o n o te t h a t in A riz o n a ,

n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e f a c t t h a t th e com m ittee r e p o r te d t h a t th e r e s u l t s in t h a t s t a t e a r e "good* u n d e r t h e p r e s e n t e l e c ­ t i v e sy stem , th e S t a t e B a r, a t i t s a n n u a l m eetin g in P h o en ix , A p r i l 29, 1939, to o k t h e f i r s t s te p s to w ard m aking th e r e ­ s u l t s b e t t e r ; th e B ar p ro p o se d t o ta k e an a c t i v e p a r t in th e 1940 J u d i c i a l e l e c t i o n s .

A r e p o r t o f th e p ro c e e d in g s was

p u b lis h e d in th e A riz o n a R e p u b lic . A p r o p o s a l t h a t th e S t a te Bar o f A riz o n a sh o u ld in fo rm v o te r s in 1940 o f th e b a r f s c h o ic e f o r th e A riz o n a Supreme C ourt J u s t i c e th e n t o be e le c te d was a c c e p te d f o r c o n s id e r a tio n a t th e o r g a n i z a t i o n s b u s in e s s m e e tin g h e re y e s te r d a y m o rn in g . 3

Annual R e p o rt o f th e A m erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n , Y o l. 63 (1 9 3 8 ), p p . 4 0 8 -0 9 .

80

The p r o p o s a l i s f o r a p o l l o f b a r members by m a il f o llo w in g th e f i l i n g o f n o m in a tin g p e t i t i o n s . Mem­ b e r s would number t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s and th e p o l l r e ­ s u l t would be p u b lic iz e d as s u b e x p re s s io n o f o p in io n by th e a t t o r n e y s og t h e s t a t e . I t i s q u ite l i k e l y t h a t th e Bar A s s o c i a t i o n s s e l e c ­ t i o n would p o in t o u t th e b e s t q u a l i f i e d c a n d id a te , b p t w heth­ e r o r n o t th e v o te r s would a c c e p t th e B a r 's o p in io n i s v e ry p r o b l e m a t i c a l; i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t some v o te r s would r e s e n t th e s u g g e s tio n and v o te d i p e c t l y o p p o s ite . The fo llo w in g p a r a g ra p h summarize th e r e p o r t o f th e A m erican Bar A s s o c i a t i o n s Committee on J u d i c i a l S e l e c t io n and T enure w ith r e s p e c t t o th o s e s t a t e s w hich u se t h e e l e c 5 t i v e sy ste m . I n most s & a te s tth e J u d i c i a l c a n d id a te s m ust go th ro u g h b o th th e p rim a ry and t h e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n s a lth o u g h , in p r a c ­ t i c e i n some s t a t e s , i t am ounts t o o n ly one e l e c t i o n , t h e f i n a l c h o ic e b e in g made a t t h e p rim a ry .

T h is i s t r u e in

th o s e s t a t e s where one o f t h e m ajor p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s i s so s tr o n g t h a t n o m in a tio n i s e q u iv a le n t t o e l e c t i o n . The m ethods o f n o m in a tin g f o r J u d i c i a l o f f i c e may be d iv id e d i n t o fo u r m ajo r g ro u p s .

In th e f i r s t g ro u p s a r e

th o s e s t a t e s in w hich n o m in a tio n i s by p a r t y p rim a ry e l e c t i o n . As m en tio n ed h e r e t o f o r e , A riz o n a i s i n t h i s g ro u p .

I n some

4 Fewsfltem i n t h e A riz o n a R e p u b lic fp h o e n ix ] , A p r il 29, 1939. 1 L J 5 A nnual R ep o rt o f t h e Am erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n , o p . c i t . , p p . 406-AO.

81

s t a t e s — f o r i n s t a n c e , in C o lo ra d o , I n d ia n a , K an sa s, and Ken­ tu c k y —a c a n d id a te may ru n In d e p e n d e n tly , b u t he i s seldom s u c c e s s fu l.

I n G eo rg ia and I l l i n o i s an agreem ent among th e

p a r t y b o s s e s f o r c o a l i t i o n nom inees le a v e sx n o c h o ic e f o r th e p e o p le .

I n a n o th e r g ro u p o f n in e s t a t e s w hich in c lu d e s Few

York and O hio, a lth o u g h th e c a n d id a te i s r e q u ir e d t o ta k e an o a th o f p a r t y f e a l t y b e f o r e th e p rim a ry , c a n d id a te s ru n w ith ­ o u t p a r t y d e s ig n a tio n a t th e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n .

In Oklahoma

and P e n n s y lv a n ia , In d e p e n d e n ts can g e t on th e f i n a l b a l l o t by p e t i t i o n o f a p e r c e n ta g e o f v o t e r s . In th e second group a r e tw e lv e s t a t e s in w hich th e p rim a ry i s n o n - p a r t i s a n .

C a l i f o r n i a i s in t h i s group as t o

i t s s u p e r i o r c o u rt ju d g e s , th e u p p er c o u rt ju d g es b e in g a p p o in tiv e by th e G overnor s u b je c t t o c o n firm a tio n by a B o ard . Iowa and West Y ir g in ia com prise th e t h i r d g ro u p .

In

t h e s e two s t a t e s n o m in a tio n s a r e made I n p a r t y c o n v e n tio n s ; how ever, i n Iow a, any p o l i t i c a l o r g a n iz a tio n ^ w hich does n o t ra n k a s a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y , a s d e fin e d by law , may p la c e nom inees in th e f i e l d . In t h e sev en s t a t e s w hich co m p rise th e f o u r t h g r o u p ,— A riz o n a , Alabam e, F l o r i d a , G e o rg ia , Oklahoma, T en n e ssee, and T ex as— th e n o m in a tio n b y th e d e m o c ra tic p a r t y I s g e n e r a l ly e q u iv a le n t t o e l e c t i o n .

I n F l o r i d a , a lth o u g h th e c i r c u i t

ju d g e s , by law , a r e a p p o in tiv e by th e G overnor, in p r a c t i c e , how ever, t h e G overnor commits h im s e lf t o a p p o in t th o s e s e l e c te d

82

a t a p rim a ry h e ld by t h e D em ocratic o r g a n iz a tio n * The n e x t s te p i n th e e l e c t i v e method i s th e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n w hich fo llo w s th e p rim a ry .

Here t h e s t a t e s d iv id e

th e m s e lv e s i n t o two g ro u p s : (1) th o s e s t a t e s in w hich th e f i n a l e le c tio n i s by p a rty t i c k e t ;

(2) th o s e i n w hich th e

f i n a l e l e c t i o n i s by a t i c k e t w ith o u t p a r t y d e s ig n a tio n *

m

some s t a t e s w ith in th e f i r s t g ro u p , in d e p e n d e n ts mat ru n , b u t e l e c t i o n a s an in d e p e n d e n t i s r a r e * The tr e n d to d a y i s away from t h e s e l e c t i o n o f Judges by p o p u la r v o te and to w ard some method o f a p p o in tm e n t, o r , a t l e a s t , a m o d ified p o p u la r - v o te method so as t o remove th e Judges from th e f i e l d o f p o l i t i c a l cam p aig n in g . t o th e A m erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n s u rv e y ,

A ccording

i n te n s t a t e s where

t h e Judges a r e s e l e c t e d b y some method o f a p p o in tm e n t, th e c o u r ts a r e h ig h ly r e s p e c te d by b o th th e B ar and th e p e o p le . A ll o f t h e s e w ere among th e o r i g i n a l t h i r t e e n s t a t e s o f th e u n io n and have d e ta in e d th e e a r l y p r i n c i p l e s o f g o vernm ent. R e c e n tly , C a l i f o r n i a a d o p te d an a p p o in tiv e sy stem w hich th u s f a r a p p l i e s o n ly t o th e a p p e l l a t e c o u r ts . T here a re tw e n ty s t a t e s u s in g t h e e l e c t i v e method i n w hich t h e r e a r e no p r e s e n t movements t o s u b s t i t u t e a n o th e r m ethod o f s e l e c t i n g J u d g e s; how ever, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n f o u r te e n o f th e s e tw e n ty s t a t e s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith th e 6

I b i d . , p p . 4 3 5 - 3 6 .,

83 c o u r ts and th e a d m i n i s tr a ti o n o f j u s t i c e i s e x p re sse d ,. The s i x s t a t e s w here l i t t l e d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i s e x p re ss e d a r e w e s te rn and s o u th e rn s t a t e s w h ere, b e c a u se o f c o m p a ra tiv e ly s m a ll popu­ l a t i o n and t h e ab sen ce o f la r g e c i t i e s , th e e l e c t i v e sy stem o p e r a te s more s u c c e s s f u l l y .

A riz o n a i s in t h i s c a te g o r y .

In

th e f o u r t e e n s t a t e s w here d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith th e e l e c t i v e sy s tern h as b een e x p re s s e d b u t no movement s t a r t e d t o change i t , i t i s re a s o n a b le t o suppose t h a t such a movement may be e x p e c t­ ed i n t h e n o t - t o o - d i s t a n t f u t u r e .

I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t in f

f o u r te e n o f t h e e ig h te e n s t a t e s in w hich t h e r e I s a movement t o s u p p la n t th e e l e c t i v e m ethod th e movement began s in c e 1931. P r i o r t o th e y e a r 1932 th e e l e c t i v e sy stem was deemed so e n ­ tre n c h e d t h a t I t was c o n s id e re d h o p e le s s t o t r y t o r e p la c e i t . Im p o rta n t changes i n o u r p o l i t i c a l I n s t i t u t i o n s , such a s t h i s one, can n o t be acco m p lish ed q u ic k ly .

,

T here i s a n o th e r group c o m p risin g e ig h te e n s t a t e s in w hich movements a r e , o r have b e e n , u n d e r way t o s u b s t i t u t e some o th e r method f o r th e p o p u l a r - e l e c t i o n method o f s e l e c t ­ in g ju d g e s .

I n th e s e s t a t e s th e d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith t h e

c o u r ts and th e a d m i n i s tr a ti o n 6 f £uS11c e e i s r g j i i t e g e n e r a l. Thevvnew m ethods w hich have been p ro p o sed in th e s e e ig h te e n s t a t e s a s s u b s t i t u t e s f o r t h e e l e c t i v e method f a l l g e n e r a l l y w i th in two c a t e g o r i e s : (1) s e l e c t i o n o f judges by d u a l a g e n c ie s , one ag en cy t o n om inate a l i s t o f e l i g i b l e s and th e o th e r ag en cy t o make th e a p p o in tm en t from t h a t l i s t , th e a p p o in tin g ag en cy t o be e n t i r e l y f r e e and in d e p e n d e n t o f t h e

84 n o m in a tin g a g e n c y ; ( C a l i f o r n i a i s in t h i s c a te g o ry o f S t a t e s ) (2) each incum bent Judge t o be s u b je c te d p e r i o d i c a l l y t o th e t e s t o f h a v in g t h e e l e c t o r s a t a g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n v o te on ■whether he s h o u ld be c o n tin u e d i n o f f i c e o r r e t i r e d , no com­ p e tin g c a n d id a te s name t o a p p e a r on th e b a l l o t *

C a lifo rn ia

has t r i e d t h i s e x p e rim e n t, t o o . (

s

S in c e th e e l e c t i v e m ethod o f s e l e c t i n g Judges i s in u se i n a l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f th e s t a t e s —a lth o u g h t h i s i s - n o t a d ­ m itte d t o be p r o o f o f i t s s u p e r i o r i t y — c o n s id e r a tio n sh o u ld be g iv e n t o t h e argum ents in i t s f a v o r .

A cco rd in g t o W. F .

W illo u g h b y : The c o n t r o l l i n g argum ent in f a v o r o f th e s e l e c t i o n o f Judges b y p o p u la r e l e c t i o n i s t h a t in a p o p u la r governm ent r e s t i n g upon th e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f p o w ers, th o s e in c o n tr o l o f each o f th e t h r e e b ra n c h e s o f governm ent sh o u ld d e r iv e t h e i r o f f i c e s from , and be r e s p o n s i b l e d i r e c t l y t o , t h e p e o p le , and t h a t a s y s ­ tem , u n d e r w hich th e o f f i c e r s o f one b ra n c h h o ld o f f i c e a s t h e r e s u l t o f t h e c h o ic e o f one o f th e o t h e r b ra n c h ­ e s , does v io le n c e t o th e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e s e p a r a tio n o f pow ers* P a r t i c u l a r l y in i s t h i s argum ent h e ld t o be s t r o n g in a p o l i t i c a l sy stem in w h ich , a s i n th e U n ite d S t a t e s , th e J u d i c i a r y has th e im p o rta n t f u n c tio n o f p a s s in g upon th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f l e g i s l a t i v e m easu res o f a p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r .? Some o f th e most f r e q u e n t argum ents i n f a v o r o f th e e l e c t i v e sy stem a r e m en tio n ed b y B e a rd .

These may be summarized

a s : (1) t h e e l e c t i v e method i s th e o n ly d e m o c ra tic way o f s e l e c t i n g im p o rta n t o f f i c i a l s , and a sy stem o f ap p o in tm en t by

® W. F . W illo u g h b y , P r i n c i p l e s o f J u d i c i a l A d m in is tra ­ t i o n (? /a sh in g to n ; The B ro o k in g s I n s t i t u t i o n , 1 ^ 2 9 ), p . 561*

85

th e g o v ern o r r e n d e r s ju d g e s to o in d e p e n d e n t o f t h e p o p u la r w i l l ; a l s o , i t te n d s t o make th e ju d g e s a r b i t r a r y *

(T h is

arg u m en t s i s opposed o n ly t o one o f t h e w o rst a p p o in tiv e m eth­ o d s ); (2) t h e p e o p le i n a l o c a l d i s t r i c t a r e l i k e l y t o know more a b o u t th e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f th e c a n d id a te s th a n t h e g o v e r n o r.

(The same e x c e p tio n may be ta k e n t o t h i s a rg u m e n t);

$5) p ro p o n e n ts o f t h e e l e c t i v e sy ste m co n ten d t h a t on th e whole i t h as worked s u c c e s s f u l l y and th e y p o i n t t o a lo n g l i s t o f e x c e l l e n t ju d g e s t h a t have b een s e l e c t e d b y t h a t m ethod. Lummus r e p l i e s t o t h i s arg u m en t,

8

i s id le to p o in t to g re a t

i n d i v i d u a l ju d g es o r g r a a t a p p e l l a t e c o u r ts f o r th e y a r e found 9 a t tim e s u n d e r a l l s y s t e m s , a n d he c o n tin u e s : A t r u e co m p ariso n m ust ta k e i n t o a c c o u n t a l l th e c o u r ts o f a s t a t e th ro u g h a lo n g p e r io d o f y e a r s , n o t m e re ly th e h ig h e s t c o u r t; and th e j u d i c i a r y a s a body, n o t m e re ly i n d i v i d u a l ju d g es who s ta n d o u t a s p a r t i e s u l a r l y good o r p a r t i c u l a r l y p o o r.-1'0 The f i n a l a rg u m e n tso f th e a d v o c a te s o f p o p u la r e l e c t i o n i s , a c c o rd in g t o B e a rd , t h a t in so f a r a s ju d g e s have th e pow er t o d e c la r e law s v o id , t h e i r f u n c ti o n a r e p o l i t i c a l , and t h e r e f o r e , th e y s h o u ld n o t be removed from p o p u la r c o n t r o l .

8 C h a rle s A. B e a rd , A m erican Government and P o l i t i c s (New Y ork: The M acm illan Company, 1 9 3 1 ), p . 654. ^ E enry T . Lummus, The T r i a l Judge (C h icag o : The F o u n d a tio n P r e s s , I n c . , 1 9 3 7 ), p p . 8 6 -8 7 . 10 L o c. c i t * 11

C h a r le s A* B e a rd , l o c . c i t .

11

86

T h is s u b s t a n t i a l l y i s th e same a s t h e f i r s t argum ent—t h a t i s , t h a t t h e p a p u l a r - e l e c t io n m ethod i s th e o n ly d e m o c ra tic o n e. As h as b een p o in te d o u t in th e c o n s id e r a tio n o f an in d e p e n d e n t J u d i c i a r y ,

12

i t i s o f th e e sse n c e o f t h e f u n c tio n

o f a Judge t o oppose th e w i l l o f t h e p e o p le , a s r e p r e s e n te d b y a m a j o r i t y , when t h a t w i l l p ro p o s e s a c ti o n in v i o l a t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s , and e s p e c i a l l y th o s e p r o v is io n s f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f i n d iv id u a l r i g h t s and l i b e r t i e s * The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e e l e c t i v e sy stem a r e n o t ev ery w h ere t h e same in a l l d e t a i l s *

In A riz o n a , f o r i n s t a n c e ,

t h e r e h a s b een a s tr o n g and u n u s u a lly c o n t r o l l i n g p u b lic s e n tim e n t in f a v o r o f k e e p in g J u d g e s .in o f f i c e r e g a r d l e s s o f 15 th e ir p o litic a l-p a rty a f f ilia tio n s . In o th e r s t a t e s t h e r e i s a p re d o m in an t s e n tim e n t o f p a s s in g t h e "rew ard " o f J u d ic ­ i a l o f f i c e aro u n d t o g iv e a s many a s p o s s i b l e t h e b e n e f i t th e re o f.

A g ain , i n o th e r s t a t e s th e J u d i c i a l o f f i c e fo llo w s

t h e p o l i t i c a l w in d s: I n e m e rg e n c ie s , som etim es, th e e l e c t o r s w i l l d is r e g a r d t h e i r p r e v a i l i n g s e n tim e n ts and r a l l y , t o sav e a good J u d i c ia r y i n s p i t e o f a g e n e r a l s h i f t o f p o l i t i c a l c o n tro l*

T h is was

d e m o n s tra te d In t h e e l e c t i o n in ?/ayne, County ( D e t r o i t ) , 12 13

S u p ra , C h ap ter I I , pp* 2 7 -5 0 , et^ passim * S u p ra, pp* 7 5 -7 6 .

87 M ichigan in 1935*

The c o u n ty , s tr o n g l y R e p u b lic a n f o r a lo n g

tim e , had b ee n t o r n from i t s p a r t y f o u n d a tio n s by th e d e p r e s s s i o n and b y n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c s *

The e n t i r e ro c k - r ib b e d Re­

p u b lic a n s t a t e had gone d e m o c r a tic .

In t h e fa c e o f t h i s

ch an g e, e ig h te e n R e p u b lic a n Judges came up f o r r e - e l e c t i o n i n 1935; s e v e n te e n o f th e s e had b e e n "R e p u b lic a n Judges o f lo n g s t a n d i n g *n

D em o cratic la w y e rs w ith J u d i c i a l a s p i r a t i o n s

s e iz e d upon th e o p p o r tu n ity o f th e p o l i t i c a l la n d s l i d e o f th e p r e v io u s e l e c t i o n t o prom ote t h e i r own c a n d id a c y , b u t th e C i t i z e n s T o r g a n iz a tio n s and th e new spapers a p p e a le d t o th e v o te r s n o t t o d i s r u p t a s u c c e s s f u l bench*

T h is was a f t e r an

u n s u c c e s s f u l a tte m p t had beennmade th e y e a r p r i o r t o save t h i s bench b y a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment p r o v id in g f o r n o n - p a r tis a n n o m in a tio n s and e le c ti o n s *

A p p a re n tly , o n ly a m ira c le co u ld

sav e t h e h en ch and t h a t m ira c le happened* V i r t u a l l y th e e n 14 t i r e b en ch was r e - e l e c t e d * T h is i n c i d e n t , how ever, i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t p r o o f t h a t t h e same r e s u l t s would o b ta in g e n e r a l l y , o r even in a f a i r p r o p o r tio n o f c a s e s , w ere a s i m il a r em er­ gency t o a r i s e . In some s t a t e s , a Ju d g esh ip i s lo o k ed upon as a tem ­ p o r a r y Job, and a f t e r a te rm o r two a Judge i s ex p e c te d t o s t e p down i n f a v o r o f a n o th e r man w ith J u d i c i a l a m b itio n s . 14 U nsigned a r t i c l e , " P r e - T r i a l P ro c e d u re Adopted Bor B oston*" J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XEX . (Ju n e , 1 9 3 5 ), Vd*

88

P a s s in g t o a c o n s id e r a tio n o f t h e u n fa v o ra b le f e a t u r e s o f th e e l e c t i v e system * we f i n d one o f th e s t r o n g e s t argum ents e n c o u n te re d i s : f i r s t * th e l a c k o f in fo rm a tio n on t h e p a r t o f a v a s t m a jo r ity o f v o t e r s a s t o th e co m p a ra tiv e p e r s o n a l q u a l­ i f i c a t i o n s o f th e r e s p e c t i v e c a n d id a te s f o r j u d i c i a l o f f i c e ; and sec o n d , th e e v e r i n c r e a s in g b u rd e n on t h e v o te r b e c a u se o f t h e in c r e a s e d number o f o f f i c i a l s t o be e l e c t e d , th e com­ p l e x i t y o f th e i n i t i a t i v e and re fe re n d u m m easu res and o f th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments s u b m itte d t o him , and th e p erp lex Q in g bond is s u e s w ith w h ich he i s c o n fro n te d a t n e a r l y e v e ry e le c tio n .

W illia m H. A n d erso n , fo rm e rly p r e s i d e n t o f th e Los

A n g eles B ar A s s o c ia tio n , p a i n t s th e f o llo w in g p i c t u r e in an a r t i c l e p u b lis h e d i n STune, 1934& On one o f o u r r e c e n t b a l l o t s t h e r e were one hundred and f i v e c a n d id a te s f o r S u p e rio r C ourt ju d g e s h ip s in Los A ngeles c o u n ty . I t was im p o s s ib le f o r th e a v e ra g e v o t e r t o know whom t o v o te f o r . I t was p a r t i c u l a r l y im p o s s ib le f o r any v o t e r , h o w ev er. e a r n e s t o r i n t e l l i ­ g e n t, t o c o r r e c t l y in fo rm h im s e lf a s t o th e r e s p e c t i v e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f su ch a m edley mess o f c a n d id a te s . At th e l a s t g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n , when t h e r e w ere a num­ b e r o f S u p e rio r C ourt ju d g es e l e c t e d , 60 p e r c e n t o f th e e l e c t o r s who v o te d f o r G overnor f a i l e d t o v o te f o r any j u d i c i a l c a n d id a te . As t h i s m eans, ro u g h ly s p e a k in g , t h a t o n ly ab o u t 25 p e r c e n t, o r l e s s , o f th e r e g i s t e r e d v o te r s v o te d t o f i l l any j u d i c i a l o f f i c e , i t d e m o n s tra te s t h a t p r a c t i c a l l y a l l o f th e v o t e r s o f th e county* e x c e p t th e f r i e n d s , f o llo w e r s and d i r e c t p o l i t i ­ c a l s u p p o r te r s o f t h e numerous c a n d id a te s , v o l u n t a r i l y r e f u s e d t o v o te f o r t h e s e most im p o rta n t o f o f f i c e s , s im p ly b e c a u se th e y d id n o t know how t o v o te , and r e fu s e d t o s t u l t i f y th e m s e lv e s by c a s tin g an u n i n t e l l i g e n t b a l l o t * Thus th e e l e c t i o n a s f a r as ju d g e s was co n cern ed was no r e a l e l e c t i o n w h a te v e r .15 15 W illia m H. A n d erson, "The S e le c t io n o f ju d g e s ," The S t a t e B ar J o u r n a l o f C a l i f o r n i a , IX (Ju n e , 1 9 3 4 ), .15 7 -5 8 .

89 I n a v e ry e x te n s iv e s tu d y o f c o n d itio n s in C hicago, Edward M. M a rtin h as d e te rm in e d th e trem endous b u rd en t h a t h as b een p la c e d on th e t y p i c a l C hicago v o te r in p e rfo rm in g h i s p a r t i n m a in ta in in g o u r d e m o c ra tic e l e c t i o n sy ste m .

An a n a ly ­

s i s o f th e e l a b o r a t e t a b l e s p re p a re d by Mr. M a rtin r e v e a l s t h a t , a t y p i c a l e l e c t o r r e s i d i n g in C hicago i s r e s p o n s i b le f o r s e l e c t i n g o f f i c i a l s f o r 165 p u b lic o f f i c e s .

Of th e s e 165 o f -

f l e e s t o be f i l l e d , e i g h t y - e i g h t (more th a n h a l f ) a r e ju d g e ­ s h ip s .

T hese a r e d i s t r i b u t e d a s fo llo w s ; 1 B 48 57 88

J u s t i c e , Supreme C ourt ( d i s t r i c t ) Ju d g es o f t h e C ounty and P ro b a te C o u rts Ju d g es o f t h e C i r c u i t and S u p e rio s C o u rts M u n icip al C ourt Judges to ta l

To n o m in ate and e l e c t a s i n g l e s e t o f th e s e e i g h t y - e i g h t ju d g e s , a v o t e r i s e x p e c te d t o go t o th e p o l l s e ig h t d i f f e r ­ e n t tim e s ; m o reo v er, he m ust make an a d d i t i o n a l t r i p f o r th e q u a d r e n n ia l r e g i s t r a t i o n .

To q u o te M a rtin :

. . . The t y p i c a l C hicago v o te r h a s been c o n fro n te d w ith a b a l l o t t h a t i s n o t o n ly lo n g , b u t a l s o wide and f r e q u e n t . When we add t o th e a g g r e g a te number o f o f ­ f i c e s t o be f i l l e d th o s e f o r w hich c a n d id a te s a r e nom i­ n a te d i n d i r e c t p r i m a r i e s , th e h o s ts o f c a n d id a te s t o be s t u d i e d , and th e many bond i s s u e s and q u e s tio n s o f p u b lid p o l i c y t o be v o te d upon, n o t t o m en tio n th e p h y s i c a l n e c e s s i t y o f g o in g t o th e p o l l i n g p la c e f o r th e p e r i o d i c r e g i s t r a t i o n s and f o r b a l l o t i n g , we b e g in t o r e a l i z e t h e b u rd e n w hich i s im posed ppon C hicago v o t e r s . 16

Edward M. M a rtin , The R ole o f th e B ar in E le c ti n g th e Bench i n C hicago (C h icag o : The U n iv e r s ity o f“ C hicago P r e s s , 193 6 J, p . 1 5 . ^

I h i d , p . 14.

90

By co m p ariso n , i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r th e t y p i c a l e l e c t o r t o v o te f a r more i n t e l l i g e n t l y f o r n o n - J u d i c i a l o f f i c e r s th a n f o r Ju d g e s .

F o r i n s t a n c e , c a n d id a te s f o r l e g i s l a t i v e

and e x e c u tiv e o f f i c e s w i l l u s u a l l y have p o l i c i e s w ith w hich th e y i d e n t i f y th e m s e lv e s , so t h a t , th o u g h l i t t l e be known ab o u t them p e r s o n a l ly , a v o te f o r them may be c o n s id e re d a v o te f o r t h e i r p o l i c i e s ,.

A c a n d id a te f o r a Ju d g e sh ip , how ever,

can have no p o l i c y a f any im p o rta n c e a s compared w ith h i s a b i l i t y t o a d m in is te r t h e law h o n e s tly and c o m p e te n tly , and h i s lo u d and open c la im s t o th o s e q u a l i t i e s a r e poor e v id e n c e t h a t he i s p o s s e s s e d o f them and i s s t i l l p o o re r t a s t e . Should a J u d i c i a l c a n d id a te cam paign by p le d g in g h im s e lf in advance t o d e c id e c a s e s a c c o rd in g t o a c e r t a i n view o r p o l i c y , he th e r e b y p ro c la im s h i s t o t a l u n f i t n e s s f o r J u d i c i a l o f f i c e . The l a t e Newton D. B aker d e s c rib e d th e m en tal p r o c e s s e s o f th e t y p i c a l v o t e r in m aking h i s s e l e c t i o n o f ju d g es when he m arks th e b a l l o t by t e l l i n g an i n t e r e s t i n g l i t t l e human s to ry : A young man f i n d s th e g o in g r a t h e r h a rd in th e p r a c t i c e 2>f la w . The w a itin g i s lo n g , and he becomes a b i t i m p a tie n t, and t h e r e i s an e l e c t i o n coming on, when f o u r o r f i v e ju d g es a r e t o be e l e c t e d . He lo o k s o v er h i s own q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and e n d o rse s them and ap p ro v e s theijL, and th e n he lo o k s a t h i s name and f in d s t h a t h i s name i s a v e ry good o n e . He may &ave g o t t e n i t in p r o b a te c o u r t , b u t n e v e r th e le s s i t i s a good name and he goes o u t t o a group o f h i s f r i e n d s and a sk s them t o s ig n a p e t i t i o n and th e y sa y , 'S u r e , f e r r y , w h ate v er you s a y , 1 They s ig n i t , h a v in g no p a r t i c u l a r know ledge o f w hat a judge ought t o b e , and he n o t h av in g enough know ledge t o t e l l them more ab o u t i t . He g e ts on th e t i c k e t , and he i s on t h e r e w ith tw e n ty - f iv e o r t h i r t y

91

o th e r p e o p le , and my w ife and my so n — I Newton D. B aker am sp e a k in g n o t p e r s o n a l ly —and my s o n - in - la w —h ig h ly i n t e l l i g e n t p e r s o n s , g iv e n t o a v e ry g r e a t d e a l o f p o l i t ­ i c a l d is c u s s io n i n an a tte m p t oil t h e i r p a r t t o p e rfo rm t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e d u t i e s a s c i t i z e n s o f Ohio in a s a t i s ­ f a c t o r y way, have n o t y e t g o tte n down t o th e J u d i c ia r y when th e y e n t e r t h e b o o th . They lo o k o v e r t h e l i s t and p ic k o u t names w hich commend th e m s e lv e s t o them f o r v e ry vag&e and im p u ls iv e r e a s o n s , p e rh a p s b e c a u se th e y once knew and l i k e d somebody who had su ch a name. And Judges a c t u a l l y g e t e l e c te d on t h a t b a s i s . I t i s n o t a b i t w o rth w h ile t o d is p u te t h a t f a c t . W ell, o f c o u r s e , t h a t p ro c e s s i s n o t so p r o d u c tiv e o f good r e s u l t s a s tflip p in g -^ g a c o in . 9 The ch an ces a r e f i f t y - f i f t y i f you f l i p a c o in . I n e v e ry community t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n f a m i l i a r surnam es w h ich have b een lin k e d w ith p u b lid o f f i c e so lo n g t h a t v o tin g f o r them h as become a s o r t o f h a b it w ith many p e o p le , and v e ry l i t t l e , i f a n y , th o u g h t i s g iv e n t o th e p a r t i c u l a r in d iv id u a l b e a r in g t h a t su rn am e.

He may be a t o t a l s t r a n g e r t o th e fam­

i l y t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d th e p r e s t i g e o f t h a t nam e.

I t is re p o rt­

ed i n t h e J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican j u d i c a t u r e S o c i e t y t h a t i n C hicago t h e r e have b een i n s t a n c e s o f change o f name by law y e rs i n o rd e r t o f u r t h e r t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n s f o r J u d i c i a l p o s i t i o n . In C h icag o , S u l li v a n i s a w in n in g name, w hich may ac co u n t f o r th e f a c t t h a t u s u a l l y t h e r e a r e f o u r o f t h a t name on th e bench.

In D e t r o i t , Murphy I s th e p ass-w o rd t o c a n d id a c y and

a s tr o n g te m p ta tio n t o c a n d id a te ® .

One c a n d id a te f l a g r a n t l y

com plim ented Judge H a rry B. K eidan by assum ing h i s f u l l 18

Newton D. B ak er, "The S e le c tio n and T enure o f Judges i n O h io .” The U n i v e r s i t y o f C in c in n a ti Law R eview , Y I I I . (November, L9&4TT 48 3 .

92

name * 19 In an a d d re s s b e f o re th e Ohio S ta te B ar A s s o c ia tio n tw e n ty - f o u r y e a rs ag o , James P a r k e r K a il, th e n dean o f th e U n i v e r s i t y o f C hicago Law S c h o o l, d is c u s s e d th e i n a b i l i t y o f t h e e l e c t o r a t e t o e v a lu a te th e r e s p e c t i v e m e r its o f t h e v a r io u s j u d i c i a l , c a n d id a te s ; O b v io u sly a s a t i s f a c t o r y s e l e c t i o n f o r any o f f i c e can be made o n ly when t h e s e l e c t i n g power can a c q u ir e some f a i r know ledge o f f i t n e s s o f i n d i v id u a l c a n d i­ d a te s f o r th e o f f i c e . Where th e s e l e c t i n g power *i s th e e l e c t o r a t e a t la r g e such knowledge i s d i f f i c u l t t o a c q u ir e i n p r o p o r tio n a s th e num bers o f t h e e l e c ­ t o r a t e i n c r e a s e s . . . . Now t h e p r f n o tp li lt q u a l i t i e s n eeded i n a judge a r e p e r s o n a l i n t e g r i t y , a d e q u a te l e g a l t r a i n i n g , and a j u d i c i a l tem p eram en t. The seco n d o f t h e s e i s w h o lly t e c h n i c a l and l i t t l e r e l i a ­ b l e In fo r m a tio n ab o u t I t i s l i k e l y t o be found o u t­ s i d e o f t h e members o f t h e b a r th e m s e lv e s . . . . v e r y few la w y e rs o f t h e s o r t t h a t would make d e s i r a b l e ju d g e s have b een a b le t o make th e m s e lv e s known e i t h e r p e r s o n a l l y o r by r e p u t a t i o n , t o more th a n a m in u te f r a c t i o n o f t h e e l e c t o r a t e In any o f our g o o d -s iz e d c i t i e s o r in t h e j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t s t h a t f i l l im p o rt­ a n t ju d g e s h ip s . I t I s a lm o st im p o s s ib le f o r a law y er t o o b t a i n a p o p u la r f o llo w in g o f an y s i z e w ith o u t a l a r g e e x p e n d itu re o f tim e and e f f o r t in w a y si^ a lto g e th e r l i k e l y t o make him l e s s f i t t e d f o r j u d i c i a l o f f i c e t h a n I f he h a i t h f u l l y d e v o te d h im s e lf t o h i s p r o f e s ­ s io n . u Many e l e c t i o n s d e g e n e ra te i n t o a p o p u l a r i t y c o n t e s t . When an i n d i v i d u a l cho o ses a law y e r t o r e p r e s e n t him , he s e l e c t s on t h e b a s i s o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o h a n d le th e p a r t i e u 19 U nsigned a r t i c l e , " C a l i f o r n i a f s C rusade f o r S e le c ­ t i o n R efo rm ." J o u r n a l o f th e .A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c i e t y , XIX (A u g u st, 1 9 3 5 ), 51 ( f o o tn a te ) 20 James P a rk e r H a ll, "The S e l e c t i o n , T enure and R e tire m e n t o f J u d g e s ." J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d i c a tu r e S o c ie ty , I I I ( A u g u s t ,.1 9 1 9 ), 4 0.

93

l a r b u s in e s s t o b a n d ,

Xf i t be a c r im in a l case o f any im­

p o r ta n c e , be cb o o ses an a t to r n e y known f o r b i s s u c c e s s in c r im in a l p r a c t i c e ; i f i t be a ca se in v o lv in g th e t e s t o f tb e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f a s t a t u t e , be se e k s an a t t o r n e y w ith a r e p u t a t i o n a s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l la w y e r; i f i t be an incom et a x m a tte r , be s e a rc h e s f o r a ta x a t t o r n e y ; y e t t b i s same in d i v i d u a l i s l i k e l y t o p a y l i t t l e

or, no a t t e n t i o n t o th e

q u a l i f i c a t io n s o f t b e man be v o te s f o r t o th e J u d i c i a l t i c k e t . I b i s may be due t o a s u b -c o n s c io u s im p e rs o n a l f e e l i n g tow ard tb e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f s e l e c t i n g a Judge a s compared w itb b i s c o n c e rn , even a n x ie ty , i n s e l e c t i n g tb e law y er t o r e p r e s e n t bim i n b i s own p e r s o n a l a f f a i r s *

Eo v o te r e v e r would employ

a s e r v a n t , choose a su rg e o n , or s e l e c t a t a i l o r o r m echanic b y c a l l i n g in b i s n e ig h b o r s , s t a t i n g th e problem t o theiji, and th e n a b id in g b y tb e co u n t o f n o ses a s t h e y a rra y e d th e m se lv e s i n p a r t i c a n c h o ic e .

I f t h a t would be f o o l i s h in a man*s

p r i v a t e a f f a i r s —and t h e r e i s l i k e l y t o be no d is p u te o f t h a t —th e n i t does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y become s e n s ib le b e c a u se th e c h o ic e o f a Judge i s a p u b lic m a tte r* Tbe s p e c t e r o f tb e coming e l e c t i o n , w hich h a u n ts e v e ry Judge who must fa c e r e - e l e c t i o n a g a in s t a f i e l d o f o p p o n e n ts , te n d s t o underm ine b i s J u d i c i a l i n t e g r i t y and t o i n t e r f e r e w itb th e e f f i c i e n c y o f b i s c o u r t .

And tb e n e a r e r

th e e l e c t i o n a p p ro a c h e s , tb e g r e a t e r becomes th e f o r c e o f th e s e in te r f e r e n c e s .

In th o s e s t a t e s i n w hich tb e p rim a ry

94 I s h e ld in A p r il and th e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n ! i n November, i t means p r a c t i c a l l y a w hole y e a r o f cam paigning w hich, in th e case o f incum bent Ju d g e s, d e t r a c t s from t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y d u r­ in g t h a t tim e so t h a t , in e f f e c t , p a r t o f t h e i r cam paign i s i a t p u b lic expense * In A riz o n a , th e p rim a ry i s h e ld e ig h t weeks b e f o re th e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n , th e r e b y s h o r te n in g th e cam paign p e r io d s o m e w h a t T h i s i s f o r t u n a t e n o t o n ly f o r th e p u b l i c , b u t a l s o f o r th e Judge b e c a u se o f th e s t r a i n on him d u rin g th e cam­ p a ig n seaso n *

E very law y e r knows th e a lm o st I n a c c e s s i b i l i t y

o f th e Judges d u rin g th e h e a t o f th e cam paign.

I t has been th e

e x p e rie n c e o f th e I n v e s t i g a t o r t o f in d th e a n te -ro o m t o t h e J u d g e 's cham ber so c l u t t e r e d w ith cam paign w o rk e rs , and t h e b a i l i f f s o a b so rb e d i n cam paign a c t i v i t i e s , t h a t s u b te r f u g e and s t r a t e g y had t o be r e s o r t e d t o In o r d e r t o s e c u re a d m issio n t o th e Judge on J u d i c i a l b u s i n e s s . A s a t i r i c a l e d i t o r i a l ap p eared In t h e D e tr o it S a tu rd a y N ig h t e a r l y i n 1939, w hich b u rle s q u e d th e demands upon th e c a n d id a te s who w ere cam paigning f o r c i r c u i t Ju d g e sh ip s o f Wayne County ( d e t r o i t ) , M ich ig an .

The fo llo w in g I s quoted from

th is e d ito ria l: CIRCUIT JUDGE GE WAYNE COUNTY—A p p lic a n ts f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n sh o u ld p o s s e s s th e d i g e s ti o n o f an o s t r i c h , a f ir m r i g h t hand w ith a c a p a c ity o f 5 ,0 0 0 sh a k e s a d a y , a keen memory f o r f a c e s and nam es, d i g n i t y tem pered by g e n i a l i t y and a f f a b i l i t y t o t a l k t o a l l s o r t s and c o n d itio n s o f men— and women—and sa y n o th in g o f f e n s iv e and le a v e t h e l i s t e n e r s w ith an im p re s s io n t h a t th e s p e a k e r i s a p e rso n o f v a s t wisdom, good humor and to le ra n c e .

95

A p p lic a n ts a l s o s h o u ld be a b le t o a tt e n d a s e r i e s o f lu n c h e o n s , clu b and lo d g e m e e tin g s , sm o k ers, d a n c e s, a b an q u e t o r tw o , and s e v e r a l s p o r t e v e n ts i n th e co u rse o f t h e day and y e t f in d tim e t o a t t e n d t o th e e x a b tin g d u tie s o f th e bench. T h is , o f c o u rs e , p re su p p o s e s th e p h y s i c a l s t r e n g t h t o g e t a lo n g w ith l i t t l e o r no s l e e p . A p p lic a n ts sh o u ld a l s o p o s s e s s a commanding p r e s e n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y b e c a u se o f th e n e c e s s i t y o f w in n in g th e c o n fid e n c e and esteem o f th e women. And, n a t u r a l l y , th e a p p l i c a n t s must p o s s e s s th e s p e c ia li z e d e d u c a tio n and t r a i n i n g n e c e s s a r y f o r a c i r c u i t ju d g e , (" Ita lic s not in th e o rlg in a T J The s u g g e s tio n c o n ta in e d i n th e p re c e d in g e d i t o r i a l by th e s u b t l e m anner in w hich th e e d i t o r i a l w r i t e r h as i n ­ c lu d e d , a s th o u g h i t w ere an a f t e r t h o u g h t, t h a t e d u c a tio n and s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g a l s o a r e n e c e s s a r y q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , seems t o c o in c id e w ith t h e m anner in w hich th o s e c o n s id e r a tio n s a r e g iv e n t o th e c a n d id a te s by th e t y p i c a l v o t e r . Answers r e c e iv e d c to q u e s ti o n n a i r e s s e n t t o n in e te e n incum bent ju d g e s in Los A n g e le s , who were f a c i n g a cam paign f o r r e - e l e c t i o n in 1934, d is c lo s e d th e f a c t t h a t th e y were f o r c e d t o spend o v e r o n e - f o u r th o f t h e i r tim e in p o l i t i c a l w ork.

T hese q u e s t i o n n a i r e s had been s e n t a y e a r p r i o r t o

th e e le c tio n .

On th e b a s i s o f t h e s a l a r i e s p a id t o t h e Judges

f o r th e tim e d e v o te d t o t h e i r own p o l i t i c a l cam paigns, a c c o rd ­ in g t o W illia m H. A nderson, th e c o s t amounted a n n u a lly to a p p ro x im a te ly $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 t o t h e S t a te o f C a l i f o r n i a and $275,000 &JL

*

E d i t o r i a l , D e t r o i t S a tu rd a y F ig h t (1 9 2 9 ), c i t e d in f o o tn o te i n th e J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d i c a tu r e S o c ie ty , XIV ( A p r il, 1931}, 179.

96 t o th e county*

22

T h e ::s tra in on th e judge and h i s f a m ily d u rin g th e p e r i o d i c s t r u g g l e in h i s cam paign f o r r e - e l e c t i o n i s t o l d i n th e i n c i d e n t r e l a t e d by W illia m H. A nderson; th e widow o f a ju d g e , when b e in g co n d o led by a f r i e n d im m e d ia te ly a f t e r h e r h u sb a n d r s death* s a i d , **At l e a s t we w o n 't have t o have a cam paignt t h i s y e a r* n

T h is was t h e one r a y o f c o n s o la tio n s he 23 found i n t h e deep shadows s u rro u n d in g h e r g r e a t lo s s * A cco rd in g t o th e canons o f e th o c s o f th e l e g a l p r o ­ f e s s i o n , i t i s u n e t h i c a l f o r a la w y e r t o a d v e r t i s e f o r b u s i ­ n e s s , t h e th e o r y b e in g t h a t h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n sh o u ld be s u f f i c i e n t a d v e r t i s i n g , a s o r t o f " b y - h is - w o rk s -y e s h a 11 -know -him ” th e o ry *

The j u d i c i a l o f f i c e , on th e o th e r

h an d , w hich sh o u ld be on a much h ig h e r p la n e th a n th e l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n a s s u c h , i s fo rc e d t o r e s o r t t o a l l th e t r i c k s and c h ic a n e r y o f a d v e r t i s i n g , some c a n d id a te s even em ploying p r o f e s s i o n a l a d v e r t i s i n g e x p e rts * I n an a d d r e s s a t th e a n n u a l m eetin g o f t h e A m erican J u d i c a t u r e S o c ie ty , h e ld in W ashington, May 8 , 1935, John P e r r y Wood spoke o f h i s e f f o r t s on a com m ittee in Los A ngeles t o i n v i t e w o rth y p r a c t i t i o n e r s t o become c a n d id a te s f o r judge b u t i n two s u c c e s s iv e cam paigns, n o t one such c a n d id a te was 22

23

W illia m H. A n d erso n , o p * c i t , , p . 158. Loc. c it*

97

£4 in d u ced t o r u n . The b e s t m a t e r i a l f o r t h e bench e x i s t s m atu re am o n g /law y ers who have en jo y ed a d i v e r s i f i e d p r a c t i c e w ith c o n s id e r a b le e x p e rie n c e in t r i a l work., b u t t h a t ty p e o f law ­ y e r h as had l i t t l e tim e t o d e v o te t o p o l i t i c a l w ork; he i s n o t a n x io u s t o e n t e r th e p o l i t i c a l a r e n a , abandon p r i v a t e p r a c t i c e and i t s in d e p e n d e n c e , and ta k e h i s chances o f w in n in g o r L o sin g a f t e r a c o m p a ra tiv e ly b r i e f te r m .

Mr. Wood, who

had been a judge o f th e s u p e r io r c o u rt o f Los A ngeles f o r f i f t e e n y e a r s , had t h e fo llo w in g t o sa y ab o u t th e a d v e r t i s i n g cam paigns o f c a n d id a te s f o r ju d g e s h ip s : At e l e c t i o n tim e th e ju d g es o f Los A ngeles and th e c a n d id a te s f o r t h e b en c h s p re a d t h e i r names o v e r t h e c o u n ty b y e v e ry m ethod known t o a d v e r t i s i n g . They w ere b i l l - b o a r d e d l i k e a p o p u la r so a p ; s id e w a lk s and p u b lic h a l l s w ere l i t t e r e d w ith c a rd s e x t o l l i n g th e m e r its o f c a n d id a te s a s k in g t o be p e r m itte d t o s i t i n judgm ent o v e r th e l i v e s and p r o p e r ty o f th e p e o p le . C o n tr ib u tio n s w ere s o l i c i t e d from f ir m s f r e q u e n t l y in c o u r t . One can ­ d i d a t e c o l l e c t e d $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 f o r a p o s i t i o n t h a t p a id $10,000 a y e a r. A pam phlet c i r c u l a t e d by a group opposed t o o u r c o n s t i ­ t u t i o n a l amendment, who p r e f e r r e d law s t o e n a b le p r o p e r d i s c i p l i n e o f e l e c te d ju d g e s , c o n ta in s th e s e s ta te m e n ts : ♦Most o f th e e v i l s now e x i s t i n g a r e p ro b a b ly due t o t h e , f a c t t h a t th e c p e o p le a r e m is le d and fo o le d b y a c a n d id a te th ro u g h d is h o n e s t a d v e r t i s i n g o f h i s c a n d id a c y . Some o f t h e c a n d id a te s have d eg rad ed t o th e d e p th s o f th e prom ot­ e r s o f c i g a r e t t e s a l e s ca m p a ig n s. One c a n d id a te a g re e d t o d is p e n s e r J u s t i c e w ith m e rc y 1 i f r e - e l e c t e d ; how ever, th e v o t e r s p r e f e r r e d th e c a n d id a te o f f e r i n g "E ven-handed j u s ­ t i c e . " A n o th er c a n d id a te o f f e r e d t o conduct a ♦ F a ir and ^ U nsigned a r t i c l e , " C a l i f o r n i a C rusade f o r S e le c tio n R efo rm ." J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XIX (A u g u st, 1 9 3 5 ), 50.

98 f r i e n d l y c o u r t * i f e l e c t e d , b u t th e v o t e r s tu r n e d him down f o r th e judge o f f e r i n g t o ’Save a l i f e * * I t was f a c e t i o u s l y s a i d t h a t a f t e r th e judge saved h i s own l i f e by b e in g r e - e l e c t e d , th e cam paign t o *save a l i f e * th e n and t h e r e te rm in a te d * P ie c e s o f a d v e r t i s i n g l i t e r a t u r e g a th e r e d by th e i n ­ v e s t i g a t o r d u rin g th e cam paign f o r th e p rim a ry e l e c t i o n in h o s A n g e le s, A ugust 35, 1936, c o n ta in s ta te m e n ts e q u a lly a s lu d ic ro u s .

One a d v e r tis e m e n t a d v o c a te s th e r e - e l e c t i o n o f a

Judge b e c a u s e "Judge . . .

i s a member o f many p a t r i o t i c and

f r a t e r n a l o r g a n iz a t io n s , in c lu d in g th e A m erican L e g io n , V et­ e r a n s o f F o re ig n W ars, M asonic O rd er, and E lk a Lodge*" A n o th e r Incum bent l a i d h i s c la im t o r e - e l e c t i o n on sev en r e a s o n s , one o f w hich was "b e c a u se he h a s c h a r a c t e r , p o is e , I n t e l l e c t and In d e p e n d e n c e "; and a n o th e r of t h e sev e n r e a s ­ ons o f t h i s same c a n d id a te was "b e c a u se he i s recommended b y o r g a n iz a t io n s t h a t have th e w e lf a r e o f th e p e o p le a t h e a r t . " A n o th er c a n d id a te h e ld f o r t h t h a t he " i s th e p e r f e c t ty p e o f t h e new I d e a l i n p o l i t i c s *

Young (3 8 ), a s u c c e s s f u l la w y e r,

l o y a l a d m ire r o f F r a n k lin D. R o o s e v e lt, . .

S t i l l an­

o t h e r c a n d id a te a d v o c a te d h i s own e l e c t i o n b e c a u se he was opposed t o th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment p r o v id in g t h a t ju d g es w ould be com pelled t o "ru n a g a in s t th e m se lv e s a lo n e , a form o f b a l l o t used by e v e ry d i c t a t o r s in c e J U liu s C aesar U nsigned a r t i c l e , " C a l i f o r n i a ’ s C rusade f o r S e le c ­ t i o n R efo rm ," l o c . c i t .

99 S e v e r a l y e a r s ago a c a n d id a te f o r t h e v e r y im p o rta n t o f f i c e o f judge o f t h e Cook C ounty C ourt in I l l i n o i s had hun­ d re d s o f windows i n th e C hicago b u s in e s s d i s t r i c t d e c o ra te d w ith h i s p o r t r a i t , u n d e r w hich a p p e a re d c o n s p ic u o u s ly t h i s r e a s s u r i n g m essag e, "Your F r i e n d ."

H is opponent c o u n te re d by

d e c o r a tin g a donkey w ith l a r g e r p o r t r a i t s o f h im s e lf b e a r in g t h e more g e n e ro u s s ta te m e n t, "F verybody f s F r ie n d ."

26

O ften e n t i c i n g s lo g a n s a r e u sed as " R e - e le c t ju d g e B la n k , h i s r e c o r d p r o t e c t s y o u ."

What h i s re c o rd i s , i s a

m a tte r o f im a g in a tio n f o r t h e r e a d e r .

In a t l e a s t two in s ta n c e s

ju d g e s have so u g h t o f f i c e by a d v e r t i s i n g in such a way a s t o im p ly t h a t t h e y were opposed t o e n f o r c in g t h e la w .

A re cen t

c a n d id a te f o r th e Supreme C ourt i n a m id -w e ste rn s t a t e u sed a d v e r t i s i n g m ethods t o c r e a t e th e im p re s s io n t h a t he was opposed t o f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s an d , i f e l e c t e d , would p re v e n t th em .

In

a n o th e r in s ta n c e a c a n d id a te u sed a p o s t e r d e p ic t in g a r u t h l e s s em ployer d is c h a r g in g a man b e c a u se he was f o r t y - f i v e y e a rs o ld , w ith a p i c t u r e o f a judge on th e b en ch p o in tin g t o th e i n c i ­ d e n t and s a y in g : "Men o v e r f o r t y s h a l l n o t be f o r g o t t e n ; th e r i g h t t o l i v e s h a l l p r e v a i l o v e r th e r i g h t o f money t o make more m oney."

A n o th er p o s t e r p i c t u r e d a w retch ed man e v ic te d

fro m h i s home, w ith t h e w o rd s: " I f we had men l i k e B lank in 26

F o o tn o te t o u n sig n e d a r t i c l e , S e l e c t i o n R efo rm ," l o c . c i t .

" C a l if o r n i a C rusade f o r

100

o f f i c e , t h i s w o u ld n 't have happened*” A l e g i t i m a t e means o f c s e l f - a d v e r t i s i n g w hich i s open t o j u d i c i a l a s p i r a n t s i s p ro p e r p u b l i c i t y t h a t comes from m e r ito r io u s s e r v i c e i n p u b li c o f f i c e , su ch a s t h a t o f p r o s e ­ c u to r o r a t t o r n e y - g e n e r a l*

I t has been p o in te d out b y P ro ­

f e s s o r Raymond M oley t h a t t h e e l e c t i v e sy ste m , w hich p u ts a h ig h premium on n ew spaper p u b l i c i t y , te n d s s t r o n g l y i n l a r g e 28 c e n te r s t o b r i n g “ c a r e e r men” t o th e b e n c h . I t i s no d i s ­ c r e d i t t o a Ju d g e, o r t o a J u d i c i a l a s p i r a n t , t h a t he h as h e ld some o f f i c e o r s t r i v e n f o r one b e f o r e .

P re v io u s p u b l i c o f f i c e

w i l l have g iv e n him some e x p e rie n c e in p u b l ic a f f a i r s , a s w e ll a s in p o l i t i c s , w hich sh o u ld prove v a lu a b le t o him In th e Ju­ d i c i a l a d m i n i s tr a t i o n o f J u s t i c e .

But t h e " p u b l i c i t y - s e e k ­

i n g ” Judge I s a menace t o o u r J u d i c i a l sy ste m ; he lo w e rs th e p r e s t i g e o f t h e c o u rts * S t u a r t H. P e r r y , a member o f th e b a r o f th e S ta t e o f M ich ig an , p u b l i s h e r o f t h e A d ria n [M ich ig an ] T eleg ram , a d i r e c t o r o f t h e A s s o c ia te d P r e s s , a member o f t h e M ichigan J u d i c i a l C o u n c il, and one who i s t h e r e f o r e an a u t h o r i t y on t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e r e l a t i o n s betw een t h e p r e s s and th e

!

J u d i c i a r y condemns t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e exchange o f o f f i c i a l in fo rm a tio n f o r p u b l i c i t y betw een Judges and n e w sp a p ers. 2? W illia m W* B ar t i e , Memorandum t o S t a t e Chairm an on J u d i c i a l S e le c tu r e and T e n u re , J u n io r B ar C o n fe re n c e , A m erican B ar A s s o c i a t i o n , an u n d ated m im eograph, p . 20. 28 U nsigned a r t i c l e , "Ju d g es and P o l i t i c s in Los A n g e le s .” J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d ic a t u r e S o c ie ty , X 7 II (O c to b e r, 1933}, 91, c i t i n g Raymond"'Moley.

101

H is a n a l y s i s o f th e e v i l s o f t h i s t r a f f i c in o f f i c i a l new s, in s u b s ta n c e , i s t h i s : n ew sp ap ers want much more t h a n mere f a c t s of re c o rd .

They want " i n s i d e d o p e ," advance t i p s , c le w s,

s i d e l i g h t s , d i s c u s s i o n s , o p in io n s , and p r e d i c t i o n s .

Such

m a t e r i a l i s a v a lu a b le commodity t o them , and ju d g e s have t h a t to s e l l .

The ju d g e , on th e o th e r hand, rem em bering t h a t he came

t o th e b ench i n a sc ra m b le f o r v o te s , and t h a t he must have v o te s t o s t a y t h e r e , a v i d l y

se e k s p u b l i c i t y from th e

n ew sp a p ers,

and th e y have t h a t commodity t o s e l l . Each s id e can s u p p ly p r e c i s e l y The r e p o r t e r s

g e t what t h e y

what th e o th e r dem ands.

w an t—th e " in s i d e d o p e ," t h e c o lo r ,

th e b a c k g ro u n d ; th e judge g e ts what he w a n ts—p u b l i c i t y and p e rh a p s new spaper f a v o r and s u p p o rt in th e form o f e d i t o r i a l s and news ite m s t o f u r t h e r h i s cam paigns.

Such a judge i s v e ry

r e l u c t a n t t o o ffe n d o r d is a p p o in t th e new spaper-m en whose f a v o r s a r e so d e s i r a b l e ; t h e r e f o r e , he n o t o n ly exchanges news f o r p u b l i c i t y , b u t som etim es a l s o p e r m its r e p o r t e r s and news p h o to g ra p h e rs t o ru n w ild in s e n s a t i o n a l t r i a l s , e s p e c i a l l y c r im in a l t r i a l s — su ch a s t h e famous H a ll s - M i ll s ease and t h e Bruno R ic h a rd Hauptman c a se in Hew J e r s e y , o r t h e v e ry r e c e n t B u rg u n d er c a se i n A riz o n a .

In c a se s o f t h i s k in d , th e c o u r t

room i s c l u t t e r e d w ith n ew spaper men, and th e p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e c o u r t p ro c e e d in g s a r e s u b je c te d t o th e f r e q u e n t menace o f c r a c k in g f l a s h l i g h t s from th e news p h o to g r a p h e r s T cam eras; i t am ounts t o what th e p r e s s m ight c a l l a S a t u r n a l i a .

T h is

102

t r a f f i c between, t h e c o u r ts and t h e n ew sp ap ers a f f o r d s a c l a s s i c exam ple o f th e o p e r a tio n s o f th e law o f su p p ly and demand. 29 S t u a r t H. F e r r y d i r e c t s a t t e n t i o n t o th e a d v e r t i s i n g v a lu e o f a s te a d y s tr e a m o f p u b l i c i t y t o any Judge u n d e r our e l e c t i v e sy stem : I t i s an e r r o r t o th in k , t h a t th e p u b l i c i t y - s e e k i n g o f f i c i a l th u s s e r v e s th e new spaper p r i m a r i l y in o r d e r t o win i t s s u p p o rt a t e l e c t i o n tim e , o r b e c a u se o f f e a r o f e d i t o r i a l o p p o s i t io n , What he more o f t e n s e e k s i s a c o n t i n u a l p a t t e r o f p u b l i c i t y , y e a r i n and y e a r o u t . He w ants t o be m e n tio n e d , q u o te d , p i c t u r e d — J u s t l i k e a movie s t a r . I f he g e ts t h a t , th e e l e c t i o n w i l l ta k e c a re o f i t s e l f . N ew spapers can keep a demagogue Judge in o f f i c e w ith o u t e v e r m e n tio n in g him i n t h e i r e d i t o r i a l colum ns o r e v e r e x p r e s s in g an o p in io n in h i s f a v o r . I t p ay s t o a d v e r t i s e . i t a l i c s n o t in o r i g i n a l 30 A n o th er f a c t o r i n s tr e n g th e n in g th e bonds betw een th e n ew sp a p ers and th e c o u r ts i s t h a t new sp ap ers r e a l i z e t h a t , w ith a l l t h e i r pow er, th e y o c c a s io n a lly m ust f i n d re fu g e i n th e c o u r t .

A n o ta b le in s ta n c e o f t h i s k in d o c c u rre d in

L o u is ia n a when th e l a t e Huey P . Long so u g h t t o m uzzle th e p r e s s b y a t a x law .*5'*' T here i s a l s o th e e v e r - p r e s e n t i n t i m i d a t i o n o f a weak Judge who f e a r s t o in c u r th e w ra th o f th e p r e s s .

The power

o f an en rag ed p r e s s was d e m o n stra te d in th e c a se o f t h e g r e a t 29 S t u a r t H. F e r r y , " J u d i c i a r y and t h e P r e s s " and " P o l i t i c s and J u d i c i a l A d m in is tr a tio n ," J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d i c a t u r e S o c ie ty , X7I (December, 193277 108-11, a n d , XVTI (F e b ru a ry , 1 9 3 4 ), 1 5 5 -5 9 , e t p a s s im . 30 S t u a r t H. P e r r y , "The J u d ic ia y y and t h e P r e s s " I b i d . , p . 110. 31 G ro sje a n v . A m erican P r e s s Company, I n c . , 297 II. S . 23 5 .

103 C h ie f J u s t i c e Co®ley, o f M ich ig an , who l o s t h i s s e a t b e c a u se he a n ta g o n iz e d a p o w e rfu l new spaper i n th e c o u rse o f h i s o f 32 f i c i a l d u ty . "A commendably l a r g e number o f e l e c t e d Judges p e rfo rm t h e i r d u ty w ith o u t f e a r o r f a v o r , n s a id H ubert C. W yckoff, fo rm er P r e s i d e n t o f th e C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e B a r, " b u t t h e i r s e a t s tre m b le b e n e a th them a s t h e y do i t . " 33 Judge Lummus sum m arizes t h e s i t u a t i o n i n a v e ry few w o rd s: T here i s no c e r t a i n harm i n t u r n i n g a p o l i t i c i a n i n t o a Ju d g e. He may become a good Ju d g e. The c u rs e o f th e e l e c t i v e sy ste m i s th e c o n v e rs e , t h a t i t t u r n s a lm o st every- good Judge i n t o a p o l i t i c i a n . ^ I t a p p e a rs q u i t e o b v io u s from th e s tu d y o f th e e l e c ­ t i v e s y s te m th a t th e w e ig h t o f th e argum ent i s a g a in s t i t , t h a t t h e t r e n d i s away from i t , and t h a t o th e r m ethods a re s lo w ly r e p la c i n g t h e e l e c t i v e sy ste m .

T h is t r a n s i t i o n , w hich

we a r e u n d e rg o in g now, a p p a r e n tly was f o r e s e e n by A le x is de T o c q u e v ille n e a r l y a c e n tu r y ago when th e sy stem was new; he wrot e : I v e n tu re t o p r e d i c t t h a t th e s e in n o v a tio n s w i l l s o o n e r o r l a t e r be a tte n d e d w ith f a t a l c o n se q u e n c e s; and t h a t i t w i l l be found o u t a t some f u t u r e p e r io d , t h a t , by th u s le s s e n in g th e in d ep en d en ce o f t h e J u d i c i a r y , t h e y have a tta c h e d n o t o n ly th e j u d i c i a l pow er, b u t t h e d e m o c ra tic r e p u b lic i t s e l f . * ® 52 H enry T. Lummus, o p . c i t . , p . 106. H ubert C. W ychoff, "A M essage from th e p r e s i d e n t — The A d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s t i c e . ” C a l if o r n ia S t a t e B ar J o u r n a l , IX (F e b ru a ry , 1 9 3 4 ), 3 7 . ^ H enry T. Lummus, nQur H e rita g e o f I m p a r t i a l J u s t i c e , ” J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d i c a t u r e S o c ie ty , XXII ( A p r i l , 1939), 243. 55 A le x is de T o c q u e v ille , "Democracy in A m e ric a .” (1 2 th F d ., 1 8 5 0 ), B ow en's R eesre's t r a n s l a t i o n , V ol. i c . 16, p . 356, q u o te d by H enry T. Lummus, The T r i a l Ju d g e, o p . c i t / , p . 107.

CHAPTER Y THE APPGINTIYE METHOD OF SELECTING JUDGES In th e r e p o r t o f th e Committee on J u d i c i a l S e l e c ti o n and T enure s u b m itte d t o t h e a n n u a l m e e tin g o f th e A m erican Bar A s s o c ia tio n a t C lev elan d * Ohio, in Ju ly * 1958*^ th e com­ m i tt e e c l a s s i f i e d t h e s t a t e s , a c c o rd in g t o t h e i r method o f s e l e c t i n g Judges* i n t o two m ajo r g ro u p s, th o s e s t a t e s In w hich th e p o p u l a r - e l e c t i o n method i s u sed and th o s e in w hich some s o r t o f a p p o in tiv e method e x i s t s .

T h is l a t t e r g ro u p —

th o s e s t a t e s i n w hich a form o f a p p o in tiv e m ethod I s em p lo y ed ,m a y b e s u b d iv id e d i n t b f i v e gro u p s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h a t many m a jo r v a r i a t i o n s In t h e i r r e s p e c iv e a p p o in tiv e m ethods. In th e f i r s t group o f s t a t e s , th e ju d g e s a r e a p p o in te d by th e g o v e rn o r.

T hree d i f f e r e n t m ethods o f c o n firm in g th e

g o v e r n o r r s a p p o in tm en t e x i s t i n t h i s g ro u p : (a ) c o n firm a tio n by th e s e n a te , (b) c o n firm a tio n b y a g o v e r n o rrs C o u n c il w hich i s an e l e c te d body (Maine and M a s sa c h u se tts em ploy t h i s m eth o d ), and (c ) c o n fir m a tio n by a b o a rd c o n s i s ti n g o f two ju d g es and th e a t t o r n e y - g e n e r a l ,

(T h is method i s u sed i n C a l i f o r n i a

f o r i t s upper c o u r ts .) New H am pshire s ta n d s a lo n e i n th e second group of

A nnual R ep o rt o f th e Am erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n * Y o l. 63 (1938)* p . 46V.

105 s ta te s *

In t h a t s t a t e th e ap p o in tm e n t i s made by th e g o v ern ­

o r and h i s c o u n c il a c ti n g j o i n t l y w ith no re q u ir e m e n ts f o r f u r t h e r c o n firm a tio n * I n th e t h i r d g ro u p , C o n n e c tic u t s ta n d s alo n e*

In t h a t

s t a t e Judges a r e e l e c te d by th e l e g i s l a t u r e upon n o m in a tin g o f t h e g o v e rn o r, e x c e p t t h a t ju d g es f o r th e m inor c o u r ts a r e e l e c t e d d i r e c t l y by th e l e g i s l a t u r e w ith o u t p re v io u s n o m in a tio n by th e g o v e rn o r, and ju d g e s f o r t h e p ro b a te c o u r ts a r e e le c tO ed by p o p u la r v o te o f th e p e o p le . E l e c t i o n by th e l e g i s l a t u r e * i s th e m ethod employed i n th e s t a t e s c o m p risin g th e f o u r t h g ro u p .

In some o f th e s e

s t a t e s t h i s method i s u sed f o r t h e u p p e r^ c o u rt ju d g e s o n ly . The f i f t h and l a s t group o f s t a t e s have a method w hereby c e r t a i n ju d g es a r e a p p o in te d by o th e r ju d g e s o f s u p e r i o r ra n k ; f o r i n s t a n c e , in Hew J e r s e y , th e c h a n c e llo r o f th e c o u rt o f e q u ity a p p o in ts th e v i c e - c h a n c e l l o r s . Hone o f th e s t a t e s i n t h e s e f i v e g ro u p s has a n a p ­ p o i n t i v e m ethod o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g e s w hich m ight be ad o p ted a s a p a t t e r n f o r an ^ id e a l* sy ste m ; in f a c t , i t i s n o t l i k e ­ l y t h a t any p e r f e c t sy stem e v e r w i l l be fo u n d .

However,

some o f t h e s e s t a t e s have f e a t u r e s i n t h e i r method o f s e l e c t ­ in g ju d g e s w hich commend th e m s e lv e s Jtor p r a c t i c a l l y u n i v e r s a l a d o p tio n . T here a r e e ig h te e n s t a t e s in th e U n ited S t a t e s w hich have th e e l e c t i v e m ethod o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g es b u t have p r o j e c t s

106

u n d e r way f o r th e a d o p tio n o f some form o f a p p o in tiv e method* These s t a t e s , a c c o rd in g t o t h e Bar A s s o c ia tio n R e p o rt, a r e C a l i f o r n i a , F l o r i d a , G e o rg ia , I l l i n o i s , I n d ia n a , Iow a, K an sas, K entucky, M ich ig an , M is s o u ri, Mew M exico, Mew York, O hio, Oklahoma, O regon, U tah , W ashington, and W isconsin*

2

The m ethods p ro p o sed in ea ch o f th e s e s t a t e s , a s w e ll a s th e s o u rc e and t h e h i s t o r y o f th e r e s p e c t i v e p r o p o s a ls , 3 a r e p r e s e n te d i n d e t a i l in th e B ar A s s o c ia tio n R e p o r t. A l­ th o u g h t h e s e movements t o g e t away from th e p o p u l a r - e l e c t io n m ethod have b ee n g o in g on f o r a t l e a s t a d e c a d e , most o f t h e p r o g r e s s h a s b een made in th e p a s t sev en y e a rs* V i r t u a l l y a l l o f th e a p p o in tiv e m ethods p ro p o sed f o l ­ low th e same g e n e r a l p la n w ith some d e v ia t io n s h e re and t h e r e ; t h e r e f o r e , th e fo llo w in g o u t l i n e i s su b m itte d as a s o r t o f co m p o site o f t h e v a r io u s s u g g e ste d p la n s w ith no a t ­ tem p t t o c la im f o r i t th e v i r t u e s o f b e in g a p a tte r n *

T h is

I s b ase d upon th e s u g g e s tio n s a s t o th e s t a t e chairm en on J u d i c i a l s e l e c t i o n and te n u r e o f th e J u n io r B ar C o n feren ce, 4 A m erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n * ^ The Power o f s e l e c t i n g th e l i s t o f nom inees from w hich

2

3

I b i d . , p p . 4 1 7 -3 5 .

L oc. c i t * 4 ‘ W illia m W. B a r t l e , Memorandum t o S ta te Chairmen on J u d i c i a l S e l e c t i o n and Tenure^ J u n io r B ar C o n feren ce, A m eri­ can B ar A s s o c ia tio n , an u n d a te d m im eograph, p p . 23-52*

107

a p p o in tm e n ts a r e t o be made slio u ld be p la c e d i n a commis­ s io n .

The m ost d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e o f th e r e c e n t p r o p o s a ls

h a s b een t h a t th e o r i g i n a l power o f n o m in a tin g c a n d id a te s s h a l l n o t be p la c e d in th e same p e rso n o r ag en cy w hich has i th e f i n a l a p p o in tiv e po w er. Most o f th e p ro p o sed p la n s p r o ­ v id e f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f a s p e c i a l body o r com m ission d e s ig n ­ ed t o make an i m p a r t i a l and i n t e l l i g e n t s e l e c t i o n o f th e b e s t men a v a i l a b l e t o f i l l j u d i c i a l o f f i c e s .

As t o th e n a tu r e o f

t h i s com m ission w hich i s t o make th e o r i g i n a l n o m in a tio n o f c a n d id a te s , w h ile n e a r l y e v e ry p ro p o s a l f o r th e c r e a t i o n o f su ch a com m ission v a r i e s somewhat i n d e t a i l from th e o th e r p r o p o s a ls , c e r t a i n e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e s a r e t o be found in e v e ry o n e . How l a r g e sh o u ld su ch a n o m in a tin g com m ission be? G e n e ra lly , t h e p ro p o sed com m issions a r e composed o f a r e l a ­ t i v e l y s m a ll number o f p e rs o n s f o r t h e p u rp o se o f c e n te r in g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in i t s m em bers.

A la r g e body o f men i s some­

tim e s i n c l i n e d t o fo llo w s tr o n g le a d e r s h ip w ith t h e i n d i v i d ­ u a l members f e e l i n g t h a t t h e i r own p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s r e l a t i v e l y s m a ll, and t h a t any c r i t i c i s m d i r e c t e d to w ard th e body*s s e l e c t i o n i s aim ed more a t th e group th a n a t t h e p a r ­ t i c u l a r in d iv id u a l.

On th e o th e r hand, in a s m a ll group

th e i n d i v i d u a l member i s i n c l i n e d t o f e e l h i s p e r s o n a l r e ­ s p o n s ib ility . The n e x t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s th e p e r s o n n e l o f such a com-

108

m issio n *

Xn most p r o p o s a ls i t i s p ro v id e d t h a t t h e commis­

s io n s h a l l be composed o f b o th la w y e rs and laym en and t h a t o f f i c e - h o l d e r s — e x c e p t Ju d g es—be i n e l i g i b l e t o m em bership on th e com m ission.

Xn one o r two in s ta n c e s t h e p ro p o sed

com m ission i s made up e n t i r e l y o f la w y e rs , o r o f la w y e rs and Ju d g es, b u t i t h a s b een found t h a t th e p u b lic i s n o t i n c lin e d t o be w i l l i n g t o v e s t t h i s pow er s o l e l y in t h e l e g a l p r o f e s ­ s io n .

The com m issions w hich p ro v id e f o r a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

number o f laym en t h e r e f o r e , a p p a r e n tly , a r e most d e s i r a b l e , n o t o n ly b e c a u se t h i s ty p e i s more fa v o re d by th e p u b li c , b u t b e c a u se i t p r o v id e s an o p p o r tu n ity t o g iv e e x p r e s s io n t o l a y id e a s c o n c e rn in g th e o p e r a tio n o f th e c o u r ts and th e ty p e o f Judges d e s ir e d by th e p u b l i c .

One su g g e s te d form o f com­

m is s io n w hich h a s met w ith c o n s id e r a b le f a v o r would be com­ p o sed o f an e q u a l number o f la w y e rs and laym en w ith r e p r e s e n ­ t a t i o n g iv e n t o t h e J u d i c i a r y in th e p e rs o n o f a member o f th e h ig h e s t a p p e l l a t e c o u r t o f th e s t a t e .

Such a com m ission

would p ro v id e an in tim a te know ledge o f th e d u t i e s and q u a l i ­ f i c a t i o n s o f a Judge and o f th e p o in ts o f view o f th e v a r io u s e le m e n ts o f s o c i e t y . The method by w hich th e s e com m issioners a r e t o be s e l e c t e d i s th e n e x t p ro b le m .

I f su ch a n o m in a tio n o r a p p o in t

in g com m ission i s t o f u l f i l l i t s f u n c tio n s p r o p e r ly , i t must be n o t o n ly n o n - p o l i t i c a l and n o n - p a r tis a n , b u t i t must be composed o f i n t e l l i g e n t men w ith knowledge o f t h e q u a l i t i e s

109 r e q u ir e d i n a Judge*

I t must a l s o be f r e e from in f lu e n c e on

th e p a r t o f any group o r i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n .

I t i s u s u a lly

p ro v id e d t h a t th e com m ission s h a l l be composed o f men who h o ld no p o l i t i c a l o r p u b lic o f f i c e .

The method o f s e l e c t i n g

th e members o f th e com m ission i s o f th e g r e a t e s t im p o rta n c e f o r t h e re a s o n t h a t th e pow er t o s e l e c t th e n o m in a tin g o f f i ­ c i a l s m ight e a s i l y r e s u l t in power t o d i c t a t e t h e u l t i m a t e n o m in a tio n s .

Where la w y e rs ^ a re t o be s e l e c te d t o s e rv e on th e

com m ission, I t i s g e n e r a l ly c o n s id e re d a d v is a b le t o p ro v id e t h a t th e law yer-m em bers s h a l l be E le c te d b y a l l th e members o f th e B a r, o r t h a t th e y s h a l l s e r v e b y v i r t u e o f some o th e r o f f i c e o f t r u s t re p o se d i n th em by t h e i r p r o f e s s io n *

F or

i n s t a n c e , t h e P r e s i d e n t , and p e rh a p s th e s e c r e t a r y , o f th e Bar A s s o c ia tio n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o rre s p o n d in g w ith t h e J u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t f o r w hich Judges a r e t o be n o m in a te d , m ight be d e s ig ­ n a te d a s su c h c o m m issio n e rs.

Under t h i s p la n t h e p r e s i d e n t ,

and p r e f e r a b l y t h e s e c r e t a r y , o f th e S t a t e B ar A s s o c ia tio n , m ight s e rv e on th e com m ission t o s e l e c t nom inees f o r t h e a p ­ p e l a t e c o u r ts , and t h e c o rre s p o n d in g o f f i c e r s o f t h e C ounty B ar A s s o c ia tio n m ight s e rv e on t h e com m ission t o s e l e c t nom­ i n e e s f o r t h e Judges o f th e co u n ty c o u r t s .

T here i s v i r t u e

In e x - o f f i c i o m em bership i n su ch a com m ission b e c a u se su ch member s e r v e s i n a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y .

I t i s assumed

t h a t la w y e rs , n o t o n ly b ec au se o f t h e i r s p e c i a l Imowledge and t r a i n i n g , b u t b e c a u se o f t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l in d e p e n d e n c e ,

110

would e l e c t a member o r t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n who i s e n t i r e l y t r u s t w o r t h y and c a p a b le o f f u l f i l l i n g h i s d u t i e s . I t i s s a id t h a t in S c o tla n d th e t r a d i t i o n among la w y e rs i s t o prom ote t b e j u d i c i a l c a n d id a c y o f t h a t member o f t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n who h a s th e l a r g e s t p r a c t i c e b e c a u s e , w ith h i s r e ­ tir e m e n t from t h e f i e l d , th e s t r o n g e s t c o m p e titio n i s e lim in ­ a t e d ; a n d , th e l a r g e r th e c l i e n t e l e w hich he s u r r e n d e r s on assu m in g j u d i c i a l o f f i c e , t h e g r e a t e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s i o f th e re m a in d e r o f th e l e g a l p r o f e s s io n f a l l i n g h e i r t o some o f h i s p r a c t ic e * The p ro b lem o f s e l e c t i n g t h e l a y members o f th e commis­ s i o n i s more d i f f i c u l t .

I t i s n o t f e a s i b l e t o a tte m p t t o

p ro v id e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r a l l o f th e v a r io u s l a y g ro u p d , b e ­ ca u se t o do so w ould n e c e s s i t a t e a com m ission so l a r g e a s t o d e fe a t th e p r in c ip le o f fix in g in d iv id u a l r e s p o n s ib ility up­ on i t s m em bers.

F o r i s th e id e a o f e l e c t i n g l a y members t o th e

com m ission b y p o p u la r v o te c o n s id e re d sound p o l i c y f o r t h e same re a s o n t h a t th e e l e c t i o n o f ju d g es th e m s e lv e s by p o p u la r 5 v o te h as been found t o be u n s u c c e s s f u l. The m ost fa v o re d m ethod s u g g e s te d i s t h a t th e l a y members o f t h e com m ission s h a l l be a p p o in te d by a r e s p o n s i ­ b l e p u b l i c o f f i c i a l who w i l l have no c o n n e c tio n w ith m aking th e f i n a l a p p o in tm e n t from t h e l i s t o f nom inees f u r n is h e d by 5

C f. antes, C h ap ter IY, p p . 7 4 -1 0 0 , et^ p a s s im .

A ll

th e commission*

I f t h i s com mission* in s t e a d o f b e in g m e re ly

a n o m in a tin g b o d y , i s t o be th e f i n a l a p p o in tin g agency, a s some p ro p o sed p la n s f a v o r , th e n ap p o in tm en t o f la y -c o m m issi on­ e r s by th e g o v e rn o r g e n e r a l l y i s s u g g e s te d ; how ever, no power o f ap p o in tm en t t o th e com m ission sh o u ld be so a rra n g e d t h a t an y one i n d i v i d u a l co u ld have a s u f f i c i e n t number o f a p p o in te e s on th e com m ission a t any one tim e t o c o n t r o l i t —t h a t i s , no i n d i v i d u a l sh o u ld be a b le t o name more th a n a m in o r ity in number o f th e members o f th e com m ission. A c c o rd in g t o m ost o f th e p r o p o s a ls , th e com m issioners * te rm o f o f f i c e sh o u ld e x p ir e a t a l t e r n a t e p e r io d s so t h a t t h e r e would be a c o n s ta n t b u t p a r t i a l t u r n - o v e r o f p e rso n n e l* T h is w ould i n s u r e t h e p re s e n c e on th e com m ission a t a l l tim e s o f some members w ith p a s t e x p e r ie n c e , th u s a v o id in g a p o s s i ­ b l e s i t u a t i o n in w h ich , u n d e r c r i t i c a l c irc u m s ta n c e s , an e n t i r e l y new and in e x p e r ie n c e d com m ission m ight be c o n fro n te d w ith t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f m aking a d i f f i c u l t s e l e c t i o n w ith ­ o u t t h e b e n e f i t o f p a s t e x p e rie n c e t o g u id e them* A ll te m p ta tio n t o s e e k in g m em bership on t h e commis­ s io n f o r f i n a n c i a l g a in o r a s a means o f s e c u r i n g p u b lic o f f i c e s h o u ld be a b s e n t.

S e r v ic e on th e com m ission sh o u ld be

made a m a tte r o f c i v i c p r i d e .

Most o f t h e p ro p o se d p la n s

p ro v id e t h a t members o f t h e com m ission s h a l l r e c e iv e no re m u n e ra tio n f o r t h e i r s e r v i c e s e x c e p t reim b u rsem en t f o r a c ­ t u a l e x p e n ses in c u r r e d , su c h a s tr a v e l- e x p e n s e In a tte n d in g

112

com m ission m e e tin g s o r in c o n n e c tio n w ith com m ission b u s i n e s s . Xn m ost s t a t e s t h e co m m issio n ers would n o t he c a l l e d on v e ry o f t e n t o p e rfo rm a c t u a l d u t i e s .

A few o f t h e p ro p o sed p la n s

p ro v id e f o r th e paym ent o f a m odest h o n o ra riu m f o r each m eet­ in g a tte n d e d o r each day d ev o ted t o a f f a i r s o f th e com m ission; how ever, t h a t i s n o t l i k e l y t o be p r o f i t a b l e enough t o tem pt anyone t o se e k m em bership on th e com m ission f o r f i n a n c i a l a d v a n ta g e • As f o r th e fin a c tio n s and d u t i e s o f su c h a n o m in a tin g com m ission, g e n e r a l l y i t i s p ro p o se d t h a t upon th e o c c u rre n c e o f a v acan cy i n a J u d i c i a l o f f i c e , th e com m ission s h a l l s e l e c t and s u b m it, t o a p e rs o n o r body h a v in g th e u l t i m a t e a p p o in t­ iv e pow er, a s p e c i f i e d number o f n o m in ees.

These n o m in a tio n s

a r e t o be made on t h e b a s i s o f c h a r a c t e r , a b i l i t y , e d u c a tio n , e x p e r ie n c e , t r a i n i n g , and d e m o n stra te d f i t n e s s f o r J u d i c i a l o ffic e .

T h is r a i s e s t h e q u e s tio n , by what m ethod, o r in what

m an n er, can su ch a com m ission d e te rm in e who a r e th e b e s t men a v a i l a b l e f o r th e p a r t i c u l a r J u d i c i a l o f f i c e ?

John H. Wig-

m ore, s u g g e s ts t h a t t h e r e s p e c t i v e Bar A s s o c ia tio n s m a in ta in a l i s t o f e l i g i b l e s even b e f o r e any v ac an cy o c c u rs and t h a t s u f f i c i e n t p u b lic o p in io n co u ld be b u i l t up i n fa v o r o f t h e B ar A s s o c ia tio n * s c a n d id a te t h a t th e n o m in a tin g com m ission would n o t d a re t o o v e rlo o k them .

A lth o u g h Wigmore makes h i s

s u g g e s tio n o n l t w ith r e g p e c t t o th e s u p re m e -c o u rt-b e n c h — b o th s t a t e and f e d e r a l —t h e r e seems t o be no re a s o n why th e

11 5

p r i n c i p l e c a n n o t b e a p p lie d t o tiie lo w e r s t a t e and f e d e r a l co u rt s .

6

H a rry A. Gordon, fo rm e rly a m a g i s t r a t e o f th e C ity o f Hew York, s u g g e s ts a fo rm o f r a t i n g s i m i l a r t o t h a t employed by th e U n ite d S t a t e s C i v i l S e r v ic e Commission t o m a in ta in a l i s t of e lig ib le s .

He p ro p o s e s :

T here s h o u ld be in a u g u ra te d e x a m in a tio n s open t o th o s e who a s p i r e t o j u d i c i a l o f f i c e . T here sh o u ld be c e r t a i n p r e r e q u i s i t e y e a r s o f m em bership a t th e b a r f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t c o u r ts —p r o d f t h a t th e a p p lic a n t h a s t r i e d so many h u n d red c a s e s in o u r in te r m e d ia te a p p e la te c o u r t s , and a n o th e r minimum i n o u r C ourt o f A p p e a ls, and th e n a s e r i e s o f w r i t t e n e x a m in a tio n s on t h e im p o rta n t b ra n c h e s o f o u r s u b s t a h t i v e and p ro c e d ­ u r a l la w , su c h a s t h e a p p l ic a n t w ould be r e q u ir e d t o a p p ly I f he e v e r became ju d g e , and f i n a l l y , p e r h a p s , an o r a l e x a m in a tio n by th e ju d g es o f o u r C ourt o f A p p e a ls . 7 John P e r r y Wood, as chairm an o f th e A m erican B ar A sso­ c i a t i o n Com mittee on J u d i c i a l S e l e c t i o n and T en u re, su g g e ste d some r u l e s f o r su c h a n o m in a tin g b o a rd o r com m ission.

He

s u g g e s te d t h a t th e com m ission sh o u ld n o t a c c o rd p e r s o n a l i n ­ te r v ie w s t o a s p i r a n t s e x c e p t upon i t s own i n v i t a t i o n and t h a t t h e com m ission s h o u ld e x a c t from ea ch p e rs o n u n d e r c o n s id e r a ­ t i o n an sw ers t o an e x h a u s tiv e q u e s t io n n a i r e d e sig n e d t o d i s ­ c lo s e th e t r a i n i n g and e x p e rie n c e o f e a c h c a n d id a te . 6

These

John H. Wigmore, "A Hew Way t o Nom inate Supreme C ourt J u d g e s .n J o u r n a l o f ..the A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XXII (F e b ru a ry , 1 9 3 9 ), 257. 7 H a rry A. G ordon, quoted i n u n sig n e d a r t i c l e , " S e l e c t ­ in g Ju d g es i n L arg e C i t i e s . " J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican . J u d i c a t u r e S o c ie ty # XIT (F e b ru a ry , 193X7, 155.

114 an sw ers would th e n be s u b m itte d t o a s p e c i a l com m ittee o f th e com m ission, and p e rh a p s a l s o t o i n v i t e d e x p e r ts , who would e lim in a te th o s e shown t o be below p a r in q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , th e re m a in in g names would be s u b m itte d t o th e Bar o f th e j u r i s d i c t i o n w h e re in th e ap p o in tm en t i s t o be made w ith a q u e s tio n n a ir e e n a b lin g each member o f th e B ar c o n f i d e n t i a l l y and f r e e l y t o e x p re s s h i s know ledge o f each c a n d id a te .

8

It

i s s u g g e s te d t h a t a p ro c e d u re l i k e t h a t would be s tro n g i n ­ s u ra n c e a g a in s t e r r o r , e s p e c i a l l y a g a in s t t h e e r r o r o f o v e r­ lo o k in g th o s e whose q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a r e w e ll known by th e B ar and t h e p u b l i c . The n e x t s t e p i n t h e "c o m p o site " p la n o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g e s by t h e a p p o in tiv e sy ste m i s th e a c t u a l ap p o ih tm eiit from t h e l i s t o f nom inees s u b m itte d by t h e com m ission. As Q p r e v io u s l y s t a t e d , i t i s n o t c o n te m p la te d t o have t h e a c t u a l a p p o in tiv e power v e s te d i n th e com m ission w hich sh o u ld be l i m i t e d t o t h e su b m issio n o f nom inees a f t e r h a v in g made th e n e c e s s a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a s t o e l i g i b i l i t y o f t h e c a n d id a te s . In m ost p la n s i t i s p ro p o se d t h a t th e a p p o in tiv e power be v e s te d i n th e g o v e rn o r a s c h ie f e x e c u tiv e o f f i c e r o f th e s t a t e , e l e c te d by i t s c i t i z e n s and r e s p o n s ib le t o them .

The

8 lo jm P e r r y Wood, c i t e d in -unsigned a r t i c l e , "Approved P r i n c i p l e s f o r S e l e c t i n g J u d g e s ." J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c i e t y , XX ( A p r il, 193771 £44.

9

S u p ra , p . 104.

115

a c t u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r th e ap p o in tm en t i s th u s v e s te d in th e g o v e rn o r s u b je c t t o th e im p o rta n t l i m i t a t i o n t h a t he f i r s t h a s been s t r i p p e d o f th e power t o make an a p p o in tm en t b a se d s o l e l y on p o l i t i c a l g ro u n d s *

The p la n ad o p ted i n C a l i f o r n i a

i n 1954 by c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment i s weak in t h i s im p o rta n t d e ta il*

U nder t h e C a l i f o r n i a p l a n , th e g o v e rn o r t a k e s th e

i n i t i a l s t e p by m aking th e a p p o in tm en t i t s e l f .

A f te r t h a t ,

a th re e -m a n b o a rd a c t s on h i s a p p o in tm e n t, b u t i t s pow ers a r e l i m i t e d t o e i t h e r c o n firm in g o r r e j e c t i n g t h e ap p o in tm en t* I f i t r e j e c t s , i t h a s no power o f s u b s t i t u t i o n .

T h is t h r e e -

man b o a rd i s composed o f th e c h i e f J u s t i c e o f t h e suprem e c o u r t o f C a l i f o r n i a , th e s e n i o r p r e s i d i n g J u s t i c e o f th e d i s ­ t r i c t c o u r t o f a p p e a ls , and th e a t to r n e y - g e n e r a l o f th e s t a t e . T h is C a l i f o r n i a p la n p r o v id e s no r e a l check on th e g o v e r n o r *s power o f a p p o in tm e n t.

S in c e th e B oard i s li m i t e d t o m e re ly

c o n firm in g o r r e j e c t i n g th e g o v e r n o r fs a p p o in tm e n t, n a t u r a l l y i t i s i n c l i n e d t h " ru b b e r gtam p" th e g o v e rn o r* s c h o ic e .

The

p a r t i c u l a r w eakness i n t h i s p la n i s i n th e f a c t t h a t th e o r ­ d e r o f p ro c e d u re i s i n v e r t e d ; i n s t e a d o f th e com m ission f u n c ti o n i n g a s an i n v e s t i g a t i n g body t o s e a r c h o u t q u a l i f i e d e l i g i b l e s , i t i s l i m i t e d t o m e re ly a p p ro v in g o r v e to in g th e g o v e rn o rs a c tio n .

T h is d e p r iv e s th e Board o r com m ission o f th e

f u n c ti o n w h ich i s th e p r i n c i p a l re a s o n f o r i t s e x i s t e n c e . Some p la n s go one s te p f u r t h e r in r e f i n i n g t h e m ethod o f s e l e c t i n g Judges o r p r o v id in g t h a t , in a d d it i o n t o M m itin g * N p te .- The g o v e rn o r a p p o in ts o n ly when t h e r e i s a v a c a n c y , o r when an incum bent Judge f a i l s o f r e e l e c t io n in ru n n in g on h i s re c o rd * T h is p r o v is io n o f t h e C o n s tit u t io n (a d o p te d i n 1934)

116

th e g o v e r n o r 's a p p o in tm e n ts t o th e l i s t o f nom inees s u b m itte d by th e com m ission, a f u r t h e r check i s p la c e d on t h e g o v e r n o r 's pow ers by r e q u i r i n g t h a t h i s ap p o in tm en t be co n firm ed by th e l e g i s l a t u r e o r b y one o f i t s b ra n ch es*

T h is p a r t i c u l a r p r o ­

v i s i o n , l i k e many o th e r d e t a i l s i n c o n n e c tio n w ith th e v a r ­ io u s p ro p o se d p l a n s , i s a m a tte r o f l o c a l p r e f e r e n c e s and s u b je c t t o t h e n ee d s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e . S in c e th e e v i l s o f th e e l e c t i v e sy ste m seem t o i n ­ c r e a s e in p r o p o r tio n t o th e d e n s i t y o f p o p u la tio n , and s in c e t h e e l e c t i v e method seems t o work more s a t i s f a c t o r i l y in r u r a l d i s t r i c t s w h ere, b e c a u s e o f s m a ll g e o g ra p h ic a l, c o n fin e s o r s p a re p o p u la tio n , c a n d id a te s a r e p e r s o n a l ly known t o th e v o t e r s , o b je c t i o n s t o t h e a p p o in tiv e method from th o s e r u r a l d i s t r i c t s can be met by p r o v id in g f o r l o c a l o p tio n w hereby ea ch d i s t r i c t o r co u n ty may choose f o r i t s e l f betw een th e new a p p o in tiv e m ethod and t h e o ld e l e c t i v e m eth o d .

T here i s

no re a s o n why b o th m ethods can n o t work s a t i s f a c t o r i l y in d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t s o r .c o u n t i e s w ith in th e same s t a t e .

The

u p p e r c o u r ts w hich have s ta te - w id e J u r i s d i c t i o n , how ever, s h o u ld have th e a p p o in tiv e m ethod.

T h is l o c a l - o p t i o n f e a t ­

u r e i s p a r t o f th e C a l i f o r n i a p la n u n d er t h e 1934 c o n s t i t u t i o n ­ a l amendment, b u t th e c o u n tie s a r e slo w t o a d o p t th e a p p o in t­ iv e method even in th e p o p u lo u s c o u n tie s . I n th e fo llo w in g d e c l a r a t i o n , C h a rle s Grove H aines f a v o r s th e a p p o in tiv e m ethod p ro v id e d i t can be "we1 1 1 g u a rd e d " : a p p l i e s t o t h e Supreme C o u rt, t h e D i s t r i c t C ourt o f a p p e a ls , and su c h S u p e rio r C o u rts in t h e s e v e r a l c o u n tie s t h a t a d o p t t h e p ro v is io n .

117

I t i s g e n e r a l l y c o n s id e r e d t h a t th e b e s t s t a t e c o u r ts in th e U n ite d S t a t e s a r e th o s e in w hich th e j u d i c i a r y h a s b een a p p o in te d , and th e a p p o in tiv e f e a t u r e s o f th e f e d e r a l j u d i c i a r y i s g e n e r a l l y commended. I f a w e llg u ard ed a p p o in tiv e sy ste m can be p ro v id e d in .w h ic h e x p e r r e n c e , t r a i n i n g , and m e r it c o u n t, i t i s conceded t h a t t h i s i s th e b e s t method o f s e c u r in g ju d g e s . No one i s l i k e l y t o d i s p u t e H ain es t h a t any a p p o in tiv e sy stem m ust be w e ll- g u a r d e d ; o th e rw is e i t may d e g e n e ra te f u r t h e r th a n th e t y p i c a l e l e c t i v e sy s te m .

Xf t h e a p p o in tiv e

m ethod i s n o t w e ll- g d a r d e d ,- i f th e g o v e rn o r h a s a b s o lu te pow ers o f a p p o in tm e n t—t h e r e can s c a r c e l y be any e sc a p e from th e u se o f t h i s power i n m aking re w a rd s f o r p o l i t i c a l s u p p o rt w hich p r a c t i c a l l y l i m i t s th e a p p o in tm e n ts t o th e members o f th e p o l i t i c a l p a r t y w hich e l e c t e d th e g o v e rn o r.

Sam uel S e a -

b u ry , who was p r e s i d e n t o f t h e A m erican Bar A s s o c ia tio n i n 1932, i n an a d d r e s s a t t h e A nnual m e e tin g , t o l d o f an i n c i ­ d e n t i n w hich two R e p u b lic a n s w ere d is c u s s in g th e a p p o in tin g power o f t h e G overnor d u rin g th e tim e o f a D em o cratic adm in­ i s t r a t i o n i n Hew Y ork.

One o f t h e s e R e p u b lic a n s s a id t o th e

o th e r: You do n o t seem t o r e a l i z e t h a t u n d e r th e a p p o in tiv e sy ste m we a r e c o n fro n te d w ith a D em o cratic S t a t e adm in­ i s t r a t i o n f o r p ro b a b ly f o u r y e a r s d u rin g w hich a Demo­ c r a t i c G overnor would a p p o in t a l l th e ju d g e s . 10

C h a rle s Grove H a in e s, and B e rth a Moser H a in e s, P r i n c i p l e s and P ro b lem s o f Government (New Y ork: H arp er and B r o th e r s , P u b l i s h e r s , 1 9 3 4 ), p . 525. ^ News ite m in th e New York T im es, J a n u a ry 27, 1933, q u o tin g Sam uel S e a b u ry .

118 T hat t h i s R e p u b lic a n had re a s o n t o f e e l t h a t way i s s u p p o rte d h y th e f a c t t h a t New Y o rk 's G overnor, A lfre d F . S m ith , d i s t r i b u t e d t h i r t y j u d i c i a l a p p o in tm e n ts , tw e n ty -n in e o f w hich went t o D em ocrats and one t o a R e p u b lic a n ; and F r a n k lin D elano R o o s e v e lt, a s G overnor o f New Y ork, a p p o in te d t h i r t y - o n e ju d g e s , o f whom t h i r t y w ere D em o crats.

12

The r e a c t i o n o f th e e l e c t o r a t e in s e v e r a l s t a t e s where t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f t h e a p p o in tiv e method f o r t h e e l e c ­ t i v e method was s u b m itte d t o them a t th e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n o f November, 1938, i n d i c a t e s t h a t th e v o t e r s a r e r e l u c t a n t t o s u r r e n d e r t h e i r r i g h t t o ch e ese Judges by p o p u la r v o te and t h a t i t w i l l r e q u i r e much e d u c a tin g b e f o r e th e m a j o r i t y w i l l be c o n v in ce d o f th e s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e a p p o in tiv e m ethod. The e l e c t o r a t e o f O hio, on November

8

, 1938, d e f e a te d

by a v o te o f two t o one a p ro p o sed c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment f o r an a p p o in tiv e j u d i c i a r y .

I n no c o u n ty o f th e s t a t e was

t h e r e a m a jo r ity i n f a v o r o f th e amendment, and in th e r u r a l d i s t r i c t s th e m a j o r i t y a g a in s t i t was h e a v ie r th a n in th e c itie s .

I n C le v e la n d , O h io 's l a r g e s t c i t y , t h e r e w ere

1 2 1 ,0 0 0 f o r t h e amendment and 168,000 a g a in s t i t .

The t o t a l

v o te o v e r th e e n t i r e s t a t e was 621,011 f o r and 1 ,2 3 7 ,4 4 3 a g a i n s t t h e am endm ent; how ever, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e r e 12

New ite m i n th e New York T im es, Ja n u a ry 28, 1933, q u o tin g S t a t e S e n a to r , George R. F e a ro n .

119

w ere 5 9 0 ,9 5 0 p e rs o n s who v o te d a t t h i s g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n , b u t 15 d e c lin e d t o v o te on t h i s p ro p o s a l* In M ich ig an , w here a more i n t e n s i v e e d u c a tio n a l cam­ p a ig n had b een c a r r i e d on b y a s t a t e - w id e n o n - p a r t is a n com­ m i tt e e composed l a r g e l y o f p ro m in e n t laym en, th e s t o r y I s n o t q u i t e so s a d , a lth o u g h t h e p r o p o s a l t o ad o p t th e a p p o in tiv e method was d e fe a te d *

The v o te on t h e amendment was 5 0 4 ,9 0 4

f o r I t and 745,312 a g a in s t I t , w h ile 3 5 0 ,781 who v o te d f o r g o v e rn o r c a s t no v o te on th e amendment • ^ The r e a c t i o n o f th e C a l i f o r n i a e l e c t o r a t e a t th e November, 1938, e l e c t i o n I s a l s o w o rth n o tin g .

Of tw e n ty -

f i v e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments s u b m itte d , o n ly se v e n w ere ad a p te d * and o n ly one o f t h r e e amendments p ro p o sed b y th e B ar c a r r i e d .

T h is amendment p r o v id e s t h a t th e suprem e C ourt

may su sp en d an y ju d g e c o n v ic te d o f a crim e in v o lv in g m o ra l tu rp itu d e ,

T h is amendment p r o b a b ly was a d o p te d b e c a u se o f

a p a i n f u l e x p e rie n c e i n C a l i f o r n i a o f a judge d ra w in g h i s s a l a r y d u rin g th e p r o t r a c t e d p ro c e e d in g s le a d in g t o h i s c o n v ic tio n . The o p p o s itio n e n c o u n te re d t o m aking th e change from

13

Howard L . B a r k d u ll, " A n a ly s is o f Ohio Y ote on A p p o in tiv e J u d i c i a r y . " J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d i c a tu r e S o c ie ty , XXXE (F e b ru a ry , 1939}, 197* 3-4

G eorge F . B ran d , "M ichigan S t a te B a r ’ s Work f o r J u d i c i a l A p p o in tm e n t." J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a t u r e S o c i e t y , 2X II (F e b ru a ry , 1 9 3 9 ), 199.

180 t h e p r e v a i l i n g e l e c t i v e m ethods t o th e p ro p o se d a p p o in tiv e m ethods h as come from v a r io u s s o u r c e s .

The f i r s t i s \ t h e

te n d e n c y o f many e l e c t o r s t o v o te "No" on any p ro p o se d change w hich th e y do n o t u n d e r s ta n d , co u p led w ith t h e i r r e f u s a l t o make a s u f f i c i e n t s tu d y o f th e q u e s t io n .

A s u s ta in e d ed u c a­

t i o n a l cam paign w i l l be n e c e s s a r y t o overcom e t h a t o p p o s i tio n . I n C a l i f o r n i a , o rg a n iz e d l a b o r has o p p o sed , a t l e a s t , some p r o p o s a ls f o r change t o an a p p o in tiv e m ethod.

S tro n g o p p o s i­

t i o n by o rg a n iz e d l a b o r h e lp e d t o d e f e a t th e p r o p o s a ls In M ich ig an and Ohio a t th e November, 1958, e l e c t i o n . I n some j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h e r e a r e p o l i t i c i a n s o f th e dem agogic and v e n a l s o r t , o r p o w e rfu l m in o r ity g ro u p s , who do n o t w ant t h e c o u r ts removed from t h e i r c i r c l e o f i n f l u e n c e . A ls o , t h e r e a r e th o s e a d v o c a te s o f "p u fe dem ocracy" who s e t up th e b a l l o t , w hich I s o n ly one o f t h e t o o l s o f dem ocracy, 15 i n th e p la c e o f dem ocracy i t s e l f . F i n a l l y , t h e r e i s o p p o s itio n from some la w y e r s .

F o r­

t u n a t e l y , th e y a r e a s m a ll m in o r ity o f th e p r o f e s s io n a n d , f o r th e m ost p a r t , o n ly th o s e men who a r e e x tre m e ly a c t i v e p o litic a lly .

No d o u b t t h e r e a re o th e r f o r c e s o f o p p o s itio n ,

b u t t h e s e m en tio n ed h e r e p ro b a b ly a r e th e m ost o b v io u s .

15 S u p ra , p p . 3 8 -4 0 .

CHAPTER YX

JUDICIAL TENURE T en u re, a c c o rd in g t o th e d i c t i o n a r y , I s t h e "m anner i n , o r p e r io d f o r , w hich a n y th in g I s had and e n jo y e d ."

As h as

b een p o in te d o u t , s e c u r i t y o f te n u r e i s most Im p o rta n t in m a in ta in in g th e In d ep en d en ce o f th e J u d i c i a r y w hich, i n t u r n , e n c o u ra g e s i m p a r t i a l i t y i n th e J u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a t io n o f ju s tic e .

1

"B eing a Judge ought t o be a c a r e e r in i t s e l f , " sa y s Lummus, "and n o t m e re ly an I n t e r l u d e i n th e p r a c t i c e o f law o r t h e h o ld in g o f p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e . "

2

A Judge sh o u ld n e v e r

use. h i s j u d i c i a l o f f i c e a s a s te p p in g s to n e t o a n y th in g e x c e p t a h ig h e r j u d i c i a l o f f i c e . I n th e c o n s i d e r a t io n o f j u d i c i a l te n u r e , two f a c t o r s m ust be ta h e n i n t o a c c o u n t: f i r s t , th e le n g th o f tim e a judge may e x p e c t t o e n jo y o f f i c e w ith o u t h a v in g t o go th ro u g h some p r o c e s s o f r e in s t a t e m e n t o r r e - c o n f i r m a t i o n ; se c o n d , t h e m ethods o f r e t i r i n g o r rem oving a ju d g e from th e b e n c h . S in c e t h e p ro b le m o f j u d i c i a l te n u r e i s p r i m a r i l y a s t a t e i s s u e - - n o t f e d e r a l — th e p ro b lem i s c o n s id e re d h e re from t h a t 1 2

S u p ra , C h a p te r I I , p p . 2 7 -5 0 , a t p a s s im .

Henry T. Lummus, The T r i a l Judge (C h icag o : The F o u n d a tio n P r e s s , I n c . , 19 S '/), . p . 38.

122

p o in t o f view*

I n a few d e t a i l s , su ch a s th e r e ti r e m e n t o f

s u p e ra n n u a te d ju d g e s , t h e s t a t e and f e d e r a l p ro b lem s ru n p a r a l l e l and t h e r e f o r e a r e c o n s id e re d h e re t o g e t h e r . T here a re s i x m ethods o f r e t i r i n g o r rem oving ju d g e s ; ( 1 ) v o lu n ta r y r e t i r e m e n t ,

( 2 ) com pulsory r e tir e m e n t a t a

f i x e d a g e , (3 ) re m o v a l by j u d i c i a l a c t i o n , (4) rem o v al by 3 e x e c u tiv e a c t i o n , and ( 6 J e l im in a t io n b y p o p u la r v o te . The f i r s t m ethod, v o lu n ta r y r e t i r e m e n t , I s and alw ays w i l l b e , th e p r i n c i p a l method o f e l im in a t in g th e d is a b le d o r s u p e ra n n u a te d ju d g e s ,u

I f he does n o t r e t i r e v o l u n t a r i l y —

ev en th o u g h co m p u lso ry r e tir e m e n t i s p o s s ib le b y law —th o s e c o n c ern ed a r e r e s t r a i n e d b y f e e l i n g s o f r e s p e c t and l o y a l t y from i n i a t l n g su ch a c t i o n .

T here a r e t h r e e m ethods o f en­

c o u ra g in g v o l u n t a r y r e t i r e m e n t s : ( 1 ) an a d e q u a te p e n sio n s y ste m ; ( 2 ) a p r o v i s i o n p e r m i t t i n g th e r e t i r e d judge t o p e r ­ fo rm p a r t - t i m e s e r v i c e a f t e r h i s r e t i r e m e n t , d e p e n d in g , o f c o u r s e , upon h i s a b i l i t y and w i l l i n g n e s s t o do s o ; and (5) d i p l o m a t i c a l l y e n c o u ra g in g t h e e l i g i b l e judge t o r e t i r e , e s p e c i a l l y i f t h i s can be done th ro u g h f r i e n d l y a s s o c i a t e s of h is . The p r o v i s i o n f o r p a r t- ti m e s e r v i c e i s v a lu a b le t o b o th th e s t a t e and t h e judge h im s e lf .

The r e t i r e d ju d g e ,

3 B urke S h a r t e l , "R e tire m e n t and Removal o f J u d g e s ." J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d i c a tu r e S o c i e ty , IX (December, . 1 9 3 6 ), 1 3 3 -5 3 .

123

I f lie I s k e p t a v a i l a b l e f o r p a r t - t i m e s e r v i c e , c o n s t i t u t e s a r e s e r v e f o r c e t o r e l i e v e th e c o u r t when an u n u s u a l h u rd e n i s p u t upon i t by a te m p o ra ry in c r e a s e i n volume o f b u s in e s s and t o g iv e a s s i s t a n c e i n s p e c i a l c a s e s o r m a tte r s i n w hich he may have become e s p e c i a l l y q u a l i f i e d .

A lso , i t means t h a t th e

s t a t e may s t i l l r e c e i v e some r e t u r n i n p r e s e n t v a lu e f o r th e r e ti r e m e n t p a y , th e r e b y re d u c in g th e b u rd e n o f th e p e n s io n . From th e J u d g e 's p o i n t o f view , i t i s much e a s i e r f o r him t o r e t i r e i f he knows i t does n o t mean com plete w ith d ra w a l from J u d i c i a l w ork. C om pulsory r e ti r e m e n t a t a f ix e d age became a d i s t u r b ­ in g i s s u e , F e b ru a ry 5 , 1937, th e day on w hich P r e s i d e n t R o o s e v e lt d e l i v e r e d h i s m essage t o C o n g ress a s k in g t h a t "new b lo o d " be i n j e c t e d in to , th e Supreme C ourt and th e lo w er f e d e r a l c o u rts .

T h is was th e P r e s i d e n t 's famous s o - c a l l e d

" c o u r t- p a c k in g " m essag e .

In t h i s m essage th e P r e s id e n t

s a id : A lo w ered m e n ta l o r p h y s i c a l v ig o r l e a d s men t o a v o id a n e x a m in a tio n o f c o m p lic a te d and changed con­ d i t i o n s . L i t t l e by l i t t l e , new f a c t s become b lu r r e d th ro u g h o ld g l a s s e s f i t t e d , a s i t w ere, f o r t h e n eeds o f a n o th e r g e n e r a t i o n ; o ld e r men, assum ing t h a t th e sce n e i s th e same a s i t was in th e p a s t , ce ase t o 4 e x p lo re o r i n q u i r e i n to th e p r e s e n t o r th e f u t u r e . C om pulsory r e tir e m e n t makes th e p ro c e s s o f e lim in a tio n r ^ A sso c ia te d P re s s d is p a tc h , A riz o n a R ep u b lic (_Phoenixj F e b ru a ry 35, 1937.

1.24

e a s y and ^ u i t e im p e rs o n a l where a s u p e ra n n u a te d Judge, n o t r e a liz in g h is la c k o f f i t n e s s , f a i l s to r e t i r e v o lu n ta r ily . An i n c i d e n t w hich o c c u rre d a s r e c e n t l y a s A ugust 7 th o f t h i s y e a r , s e r v e s t o em phasize th e need f o r some m ethod o f c o m p u ls o rily r e t i r i n g su p e ra n n u a te d J u d g e s.

T h is i n c i d e n t

o c c u rre d in P h i la d e l p h ia d u rin g th e second c o n s p ira c y t r i a l o f r e t i r e d U. S . C i r c u i t Ju d g e/W arren P a v la , who was ac cu sed o f s e l l i n g J u s t i c e t o W illia m Fox (moving p i c t u r e m a g n a te ), i n Mr. F o x r s b a n k ru p tc y l i t i g a t i o n d u rin g th e y e a r s 1936, 1937, and 1938.

M r. F ox, who had b een ch arg ed a s one o f th e

c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s , had p le a d e d g u i l t y .

The te s tim o n y i n th e t r i a l

o f Judge D avis i n d i c a t e d t h a t he and h i s c o - c o n s p ir a t o r s had ta k e n a d v a n ta g e o f t h e p h y s i c a l i n f i r m i t i e s o f C i r c u i t Judge Jo se p h B u ffin g to n , th e p r e s i d i n g Judge in th e Fox b a n k ru p tc y c a s e s , t o o b ta in h i s s i g n a t u r e t o o p in io n s w hich Judge D avis had w r i t t e n , and t h a t Judge B u ffin g to n had s ig n e d th e s e o p in ­ io n s a s th o u g h th e y w ere h i s own a lth o u g h he d id n o t know 5 t h e i r c o n te n ts . Judge B u ffin g to n , who a p p e a re d a s a w i t ­ n e s s a t th e t r i a l o f Judge D a v is, t e s t i f i e d t h a t "Xn some c a s e s my h e a r in g was su ch t h a t X l e f t th e b en ch w ith o u t th e in fo rm a tio n t h a t X sh o u ld have h a d ."

6

A cc o rd in g t o th e

U n ite d P r e s s d i s p a t c h , P h o en ix fjlriz o n a l] G a z e tte , A ugust 8 , 1941, r e p o r t i n g th e c o n s p ira c y t r i a l o f Judge J . W arren D a v is . ® U n ite d P r e s s d i s p a t c h , P h o en ix [A rizo n a] G a z e tte , A ugust 7, 1941, 0 ]D. c i t *, p . 1 .

125

P h o e n ix [A rizo n a] g a z e t t e » Judge B u ffin g to n s a i d t h a t he was " t o t a l l y d e a f i n one e a r and n e a r l y t o t a l l y b l i n g in one e y e , 7 w ith th e s i g h t o f t h e o th e r eye 1 s e r i o u s l y d e t e r i o r a t e d The r e a l p ro b lem i s t o f i x th e r e t i r e m e n t a g e . men* a t f i f t y , a r e o ld e r th a n o t h e r men a t n i n e t y .

Some

T h is

c o u n try would have s u s ta in e d a g r e a t l o s s i f i t had r e t i r e d J u s t i c e O liv e r W endell Holmes a t s e v e n ty .

The same can be

s a id ab o u t many o th e r em inent J u s t i c e s o f th e Supreme C ourt o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s , a s w e ll a s o f Judges o f c o u r ts th ro u g h ­ out th e la n d .

A tto r n e y - g e n e r a l Homer Cummings, recommended

t o th e S e v e n ty - s ix th C o n gress a c o n s tm tu tio n a l amendment r e ­ q u i r i n g a l l f e d e r a l Ju d g es t o r e t i r e a t th e age o f s e v e n ty — a recom m endation w h ich , he f e l t , was " i n a c c o rd w ith th e S m a j o r i t y o p in io n o f o u r p e o p le ." A dm itted t h a t no age can be f i x e d a t w hich a l l men become u n f i t f o r th e b e n c h , th e d i f ­ f i c u l t y i s no g r e a t e r th a n i t was t o f i x th e age f o r a r r i v i n g a t l e g a l m a jo r ity w h ich h as b een f ix e d a t tw e n ty -o n e .

If

p r o v i s i o n s a r e made f o r p a r t - t i m e s e r v ic e f o r Judges compul­ s o r i l y r e t i r e d , i t w i l l re d u c e th e l o s s o f man-power w hich o th e r w is e would r e s u l t . 7

L o c. c i t .

8 A s s o c ia te d P r e s s d i s p a tc h , P h o en ix [A r iz o n a J g a z e t t e , December 31, 1938, q u o tin g from. A tto r n e y - g e n e r a l Homer dninm in g 's R ep o rt t o S e v e n t y - s ix th C o n resss c o v e rin g th e a e tiv iO t i e s . o f th e D epartm ent o f J u s t i c e f o r th e y e a r en d in g June 30, 1938.

126

Removal by J u d i c i a l a c t i o n i s one o f t h e m ethods o f rem oving ju d g e s who have become u n f i t b e f o r e r e a c h in g th e age o f com pulsory r e ti r e m e n t and who do n o t r e s i g n v o l u n t a r i l y . Xt i s th e f a i r e s t and most e f f e c t i v e method f o r a c c o m p lis h ­ in g t h i s p u r p o s e .

In E u ro p e, i t i s a q u it e common m ethod,

w h ile i n t h i s c o u n try o n ly a few s t a t e s have p r o v i s io n s f o r i t . Amendment number f o u r t e e n , ad o p ted in C a l i f o r n i a a t t h e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n , November, 1958, goes o n ly p a r t way in t h e rem o v al o f u n f i t ju d g e s whose conduct, has made them ob-^ n o x io u s .

T h is amendment p ro v id e s t h a t th e suprem e c o u r t o f

C a l i f o r n i a may suspend a judge c o n v ic te d o f crim e " u n t i l such tim e a s su ch judgm ent o f c o n v ic tio n becomes f i n a l . "

I t sh o u ld

p ro v id e t h a t th e c o u r t may h e a r c h a rg e s a f f e c t i n g a ju d g e Ts f i t n e s s t o r e t a i n o f f i c e and e i t h e r r e t a i n o r remove him from t h e b e n c h ; th o s e a r e , s u b s t a n t i a l l y , th e p r o v is io n s o f th e Sumner B i l l , H .R .2271, S e v e n t y - f i f t h C o n g ress.

I t p ro v id e s

f o r a h e a r in g by a s p e c i a l c o u r t t o be convened by th e C h ie f J u s t i c e o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s w henever t h e House o f R e p re se n ­ t a t i v e s , by r e s o l u t i o n , a c c u s e s a ju d g e o f conduct " o th e r th a n good b e h a v io r ."

T h is s p e c i a l c o u r t r s j u r i s d i c t i o n e x te n d s t o

r e t a i n i n g o r rem oving th e a c c u se d from o f f i c e and no o th e r p e n a lt y ma#- b e im posed. Q

9 T h ere i s no a p p e a l from th e ju d g m en t. .

R e p o rt No. 814 ( p a r t s 1 and 2 ) , House o f R e p re s e n ta ­ t i v e s , S e v e n t y - f i f t h C o n g re ss, F i r s t s e s s io p , May 14, 1937 and June 1 7 , 1937, r e s p e c t i v e l y .

127 S p eak in g on t h i s b i l l in th e H ouse, th e H o n o rab le John R. Murdock o f A riz o n a s a i d ,

. * I have a s l i g h t s u s p ic io n

in my mind c o n c e rn in g o u r c o u r ts , and I w i l l c o n fe s s t h a t w h ile t h i s d e b a te h a s ru n on, I have been w ondering a b o u t th e wisdom o f t h e p r o v i s i o n in t h i s b i l l t o t r y an a c c u se d judge b e f o r e t h r e e o th e r j u d g e s ,” 1 0

. io . n ” may be m e re ly T hat " s u s p ic

a C o n g re ssm a n s com plex! W hile i n th e f e d e r a l c o u r t sy stem , u n d er t h e Sumner B i l l , a c t i o n must be i n i t i a t e d by a r e s o l u t i o n o f th e House o f R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s , any s i m i l a r m easure in th e s t a t e law s sh o u ld p e rm it e i t h e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o r th e C h ief j u s t i c e , and p e rh a p s even th e a t t o r n e y - g e n e r a l , t o i n i t i a t e th e a c t i o n ; b u t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o do so , when a s i t u a t i o n c a l l s f o r i t , d e f i n i t e l y sh o u ld be p la c e d upon t h e C h ie f J u s t i c e .

Thds

th e c o u r ts sh o u ld be made f u l l y r e s p o n s ib le f o r k e e p in g t h e i r own ho u se i n o r d e r . The f o u r t h m ethod o f rem oving u n f i t ju d g es i s by e x e c u tiv e a c t i o n .

U nder e x i s t i n g la w s, no e x e c u tiv e in t h e

U n ite d S t a t e s h as th e d i c t a t o r i a l pow er t o remove a judge w ith o u t th e c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f some o t h e r b ra n c h o f t h e g o v e rn ­ m en t, o r some g o v e rn m e n ta l a g e n c y .

F or i n s ta n c e , in Hew

York th e g o v e rn o r ta k e s t h e i n i t i a t i v e , b u t tw o - t h ir d s o f t h e s e n a te m ust c o n c u r.

Xn M a s s a c h u s e tts th e g o v e rn o r must

^ John R. M urdock, "A nother J u d i c i a l R efo rm .” Remarks i n th e House o f R e p r e s e n t a tiv e s , C ongres s i o n a l R eco rd , S e v e n t y - f i f t h C o n g re ss, F i r s t s e s s i o n , Y o l. S I, p . 0660.

128 have t h e c o n c u rre n c e o f t h e J u d i c i a l c o u n c il* The f i f t h m ethod o f e li m in a tin g u n f i t Judges i s by l e g i s l a t i v e a c tio n *

T h ere a r e two form s o f l e g i s l a t i v e

a c t i o n : (1) a d d r e s s and (2). impeachment*

I n E ngland Judges

a r e rem ovable o n ly b y a J o in t " a d d re s s " o f b o th h o u ses o f P a r lia m e n t.

A J o in t " a d d r e s s " i s n o th in g more th a n a J o in t

re s o lu tio n *

I n tw e n ty - e ig h t o f o u r s t a t e s Judges a r e rem ov­

a b le by J o i n t r e s o l u t i o n (a d d r e s s ) o f th e l e g i s l a t u r e ; b u t i n a l l s t a t e s t h e r e i s some form o f r e s t r i c t i o n on t h i s pow­ e r , su ch a s a p r o v is io n r e q u i r i n g a t h r e e - f o u r t h s v o te o f b o th h o u ses a s in I l l i n o i s and W ashington,

12

o r e x te n d in g

th e p r i v i l e g e o f n o t i c e and a p u b lic h e a r in g on th e r e s o l u ­ t i o n , o r s i m i l a r form s o f r e s t r i c t i o n *

The power t o remove

b y a d d r e s s g e n e r a l l y i s w id e r and more f l e x i b l e th a n th e power o f im peachm ent. Impeachment p r o c e e d in g s , c o n s i s t o f two p a r t s : f i r s t , a c h a rg e o f m isco n d u ct p r e s e n te d by t h e lo w er house o f th e l e g i s l a t u r e ; an d , se c o n d , a h e a r in g and d e c is io n on th e ch a rg e by t h e u p p er house ( s e n a te ) s i t t i n g a s a c o u r t .

As a

method o f e l i m in a t in g u n f i t Ju d g es, Impeachment h as n o t p ro v ed e f f e c t i v e . v o te s .

Many tim e s c o n v ic tio n h as f a i l e d by a few

Impeachment a lm o st alw ays h as been re g a rd e d a s a p e n a l 11 12

B urke S h a r t e l ,

0£

. c i t . , f o o tn o t e , p . 145.

I b i d . , f o o t n o t e , p . 147.

129 p ro c e e d in g , a lth o u g h i n r e a l i t y i t i s n o t .

The c r im in a l

i m p li c a t io n p ro b a b ly l i e s in t h e n a t u r e o f th e g ro u n d s f o r im peachm ent w hich a r e s p e c i f i e d i n th e c o n s t i t u t i o n .

The

C o n s t it u t i o n o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s and t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f e v e r y s t a t e i n th e U nion, e x c e p t tw o , have im peachm ent p r o 13 v i s i o n s i n th em . The u se o f im peachm ent i n e a r l i e r days i s a n y th in g b u t a g l o r i o u s page o f h i s t o r y — f o r i n s t a n c e , th e c a se o f Judge C a lv in P e a s e and o f Judge Tod o f O hio.

They w ere two o f th e

f i r s t ju d g e s t o h o ld a n a c t o f t h e Ohio l e g i s l a t u r e u n c o n s t i ­ tu tio n a l.

C re a t p u b l i c e x c ite m e n t was c r e a te d by t h e i r d e­

c i s i o n s , and a t t h e n e x t s e s s i o n o f th e l e g i s l a t u r e t h e im­ peachm ent o f t h e s e two Ju d g es was r e s o lv e d upon.

B oth Judges

w ere a c q u i t t e d , b u t th e l e g i s l a t o r s w ere so in d ig n a n t t h a t t h e y — c irc u m v e n tin g t h e t w o - t h ir d v o te re q u ire m e n t f o r im­ peachm ent-—b y a sim p le m a j o r i t y d e c la r e d v a c a n t t h e o f f i c e s o f 14 t h e o f fe n d in g Ju d g e s, t h e r e b y a c c o m p lis h in g th e same r e s u l t s . The more r e c e n t im peachm ent o f Judge A rc h b ald i n 1913 and o f Judge H a ls te d L . R i t t e r i n 1936 o b v io u s ly w ere J u s t i ­ fie d .

T hese two c a s e s a r e i n d i c a t i v e o f th e te n d e n c y t o

e x te n d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f im peachm ent beyond th e fo rm e r more 13

' I b i d . , p p . 144 and 147. 14 • W illia m S . C a r p e n te r , J u d i c i a l T enure i n th e U n ite d S t a t e s (Hew H aven: T a le U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 1 8 ), p p . 113 and 16 0 .

130 r e s t r i c t e d c a u s e s w hich in v o lv e d m o ra l d e lin q u e n c y . The c h a rg e s a g a in s t ;iudge A rc h b a ld , on w hich he was im p each ed , a c c u se d him o f u s in g h i s i n f l u e n c e , a s a Judge o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s Commerce C o u rt, t o s e c u re f a v o r a b le b u s i ­ n e s s n e g o t i a t i o n s w ith common c a r r i e r s engaged i n i n t e r s t a t e commerce and h a v in g , a t th e tim e , s u i t s p en d in g in h i s c o u r t .

15

In th e im peachm ent c a se o f Judge H a ls te d I*. H i t t e r , sev e n a r t i c l e s o f im peachm ent w ere b ro u g h t a g a i n s t him by t h e House o f R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s .

T hese w e re : (1) t h a t Judge R i t t e r

had t r i c k e d Judge A lex a n d er Akerman i n t o s ig n in g an o r d e r a llo w in g a f e e o f § 1 5 ,0 0 0 t o A. 1 . R an k in , Judge R i t t e r 's fo rm e r law p a r t n e r , f o r l e g a l s e r v i c e s i n c o n n e c tio n w ith th e W h ite h a ll H o te l f o r e c l o s u r e s u i t ; t h a t Judge R i t t e r l a t e r a llo w e d t o Mr. R ankin an a d d i t i o n a l § 7 5 ,0 0 0 , a lth o u g h Judge Akerman had b e lie v e d t h e § 1 5 ,0 0 0 was a l l t h a t was t o be a llo w e d , and t h a t M r. R ankin p a id t o Judge R i t t e r § 4 ,5 0 0 i n c a s h o u t o f t h e p ro c e e d s o f t h i s second fe e £ (2 ) t h a t Judge R i t t e r c o n s p ire d w ith Mr. R an k in and o th e r s t o have th e W h ite h a ll H o te l c a s e b ro u g h t i n t o h i s c o u rt and t o r e t a i n i t t h e r e even a f t e r th e p l a i n t i f f had a p p e a re d i n p e rs o n t o a s k t h a t i t be d ro p p e d ; (3 ) t h a t Judge R i t t e r had p r a c t i c e d law a f t e r g o in g on th e b e n c h b y a d v is in g th e M ulford R e a lty C o rp o ra tio n and

15 I b i d . , p p . 144, e t . s e q .

131

t h a t lie h ad s o l i c i t e d and o b ta in e d a f e e o f $ 2 ,0 0 0 f o r su c h s e rv ic e s ;

(4 ) t h a t he had a c c e p te d a g i f t o f $ 7 ,500 from one

h a v in g l a r g e p r o p e r ty i n t e r e s t s i n h i s J u r i s d i c t i o n ;

(5) t h a t

he evaded income t a x l i a b i l i t y i n 1929; (6) t h a t he evaded incom e t a x l i a b i l i t y in 1930; and (7 ) T hat t h e s a id H a ls te d L . R i t t e r • . . was and i s g u i l t y o f m is b e h a v io r and o f h ig h crim es and m is­ dem eanors i n o f f i c e i n m anner and form a s f o llo w s , to w it: The re a s o n a b le and p ro b a b le co n sequence o f th e a c t i o n s o r co n d u ct o f H a ls te d 1 - R i t t e r • . . i s t o b r i n g h i s c o u r t i n t o s c a n d a l and d i s r e p u t e , t o th e p r e j u d i c e o f s a id c o u rt and p u b li c c o n fid e n c e in th e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f J u s t i c e t h e r e i n , and t o th e p r e j u ­ d ic e o f p u b lic r e s p e c t f o r and c o n fid e n c e in th e F e d e r a l J u d i c i a r y , and t o r e n d e r him u n f i t t o c o n tin u e t o s e rv e a s su ch Judge * In t h a t th e s a i d H a ls te d L . R i t t e r , w h ile such F e d e r a l Judge, a c c e p te d , i n a d d i t i o n t o $ 4 ,5 0 0 * . . 16 The re m a in d e r o f th e s e v e n th a r t i c l e o f im peachm ent c o n ta in e d a r e c a p i t u l a t i o n o f th e s p e c i f i c a c t s and a m is s io n s enum erated i n th e f i r s t s i x a r t i c l e s , a l l o f w hich w ere combined a s one ch arg e i n th e s e v e n th a r t i c l e *

T h is a r t i c l e c o n ta in e d t h e

a d d i t i o n a l a l l e g a t i o n t h a t th e a c t s and o m is sio n s com plained o f had b ro u g h t Judge R i t t e r ’ s c o u r t " i n t o s c a n d a l and d i s ­ r e p u te * ”

Judge R i t t e r was found ”n o t g u i l t y ” on th e f i r s t

16 Im peachment p ro c e e d in g s o f Judge H a ls te d I*. R i t t e r in th e U n ite s S t a t e s S e n a te a s r e p o r t e d in th e New YorK T im es, A p r i l 18, 1 936.

152

s i x c o u n ts b u t was Im peached on th e s e v e n th c o u n t, a r e s u l t w hich was somewhat o f a s e l f - p o n t r a d i c t i o n by t h e S e n a te . B ecause o f t h a t a p p a re n t I n c o n s is te n c y , S e n a to r A u s tin o f Termont u n s u c c e s s f u l l y c h a lle n g e d th e l e g a l i t y o f th e im­ peachm ent on t h e s e v e n th c o u n t. Judge R i t t e r was th e f o u r t h F e d e r a l Judge t o be im­ p each ed i n t h e h i s t o r y o f t h i s c o u n try ; Judge R o b ert W. 17 A rc h b a ld , in 1913, was th e t h i r d . Judge West H. Humphreys o f T en n essee was th e s e c o n d ; he was im peached In 1862 f o r m aking an im p ro p er s p e e c h .

Judge John P ic k e r in g o f Termont

was th e f i r s t ; he was im peached i n 1804 f o r d ru n k e n n ess on th e b en c h and f o r i n s a n x ty . 18 A lth o u g h a few s t a t e s p ro v id e f o r impeachment on t h e g ro u n d s o f "incom petency**--and in N o rth C a ro lin a "m e n ta l o r p h y s i c a l in co m p eten ce" a r e s u f f i c i e n t g r o u n d s f - in most s t a t e s t h e d is a b le d o r in c o m p e te n t Judge can n o t be im peached. Even th o u g h im peachm ent and a d d r e s s a r e cumbersome and i n e f f e c t i v e m ethods in m ost c a se s t o remove an In co m p eten t Judge from th e b en ch , t h e r e i s no need t o a b o l i s h th e s e m eth­ ods ; t o t h e c o n tr a r y , th e y sh o u ld be r e t a i n e d and sh o u ld be su p p lem en ted b y p r o v i s i o n s f o r re m o v a l by J u d i c i a l a c ti o n 19 s i m i l a r t o t h a t p ro v id e d f o r i n t h e Sumner B i l l . 17 18 19

S u p ra , p p . 1 2 5 -2 6 . New York T im es, o p . c i t . S u p ra , p p . 1 2 2 -2 3 .

133 The s i x t h and l a s t method o f e l im in a t in g Judges who a r e u n f i t f o r o f f i c e i s d e f e a t by p o p u la r v o te f o r r e - e l e c t i o n . E lim in a tio n by t h i s method may be in any o f fo u r d i f f e r e n t w ays, d ep en d in g upon th e c irc u m s ta n c e s o f th e case and th e p a r t i c u l a r e l e c t i v e sy ste m in u se in th e s t a t e o r th e J u r i s ­ d i c t i o n in v o lv e d .

T hese f o u r ways a r e : (1 ) d e f e a t f o r r e -

n o m in a tio n ; (2 ) d e f e a t f o r r e - e l e c t i o n ;

{3$ n e g a tiv e v o te i n

th o s e J u r i s d i c t i o n s w here a Judge p e r i o d i c a l l y m ust go b e f o r e t h e e l e c t o r a t e who m e re ly v o te on w h e th e r o r n o t he s h a l l be r e ­ t a i n e d i n o f f i c e ; and (4 ) r e c a l l . In b o th A riz o n a and C a l i f o r n i a th e r e c a l l i s c o u p led w ith th e e l e c t i o n o f a s u c c e s s o r w hich i s an u n d e s ir a b le fe a tu re .

The A riz o n a C o n s t itu ti o n p r o v id e s :

Unless he Cthe person sought to be recalled!? other­ wise request, in writing, his name shall be placed as a candidate on the official ballot without nomination.

O th er c a n d id a te s f o r th e o f f i c e may be nom inated t o be v o te d f o r a t s a id e l e c t i o n . The c a n d id a te who s h a l l r e c e i v e th e h ig h e s t number o f v o te s s h a l l be d e c la re d e l e c t e d f o r t h e re m a in d e r o f t h e te rm . U n less th e incum bent r e c e i v e th e h ig h e s t number o f v o te s , he s f t a l l be deemed t o be remo'ved from o f f i c e , . . . In K ansas , in a r e c a l l e l e c t i o n , th e Judge does n o t ru n a g a in s t o p p o sin g c a n d id a te s b u t m e re ly a g a in s t h i s own r e c o r d w hich seems t o be a more s a t i s f a c t o r y m ethod.

The u se

o f th e r e c a l l t o remove Judges from o f f i c e h as been v e ry r a r e ;

^

C o n s t it u t i o n o f A riz o n a , A r t i c l e V I I I , S e c tio n 4

134 how ever, by o ur e l e c t i v e sy ste m , w here th e judge p e r i o d i c a l ­ l y must f a c e a f i e l d o f o p p o sin g c a n d id a te s , he a c t u a l l y i s s u b je c t t o a p r o g e s s s iv e s e r i e s o f r e c a l l s in w hich, some­ tim e s , he m ust fa c e a l l s o r t s o f c h a rg e s from h i s o pponents* T h is d i f f e r s from th e s t r i c t l y l e g a l r e c a l l e l e c t i o n i n t h a t i n t h e l a t t e r s p e c i f i c c h a rg e s a g a in s t th e incum bent m ust be p r i n t e d on th e b a l l o t ,

21

th e r e b y l i m i t i n g and d e f in in g th e

c h a rg e s a g a i n s t th e a c c u s e d , a f e a t u r e w hich makes th e r e c a l l f a i r e r t o t h e judge whose r e c a l l i s so u g h t th a n a w id e-o p en m u d -s lin g in g cam paign.

As in th e c a se og im peachm ent, t h e r e

i s no re a s o n why th e p r e s e n t r e c a l l sh o u ld be d is tu r b e d i f i t i s p r o p e r l y su p p lem en ted by more e l a s t i c m eth o d s.

Even

th o u g h th e r e c a l l may n e v e r be u s e d , i t s p re s e n c e in th e

con­

s t i t u t i o n h a s a s tr o n g m o ral e f f e c t on b o th th e j u d i c i a l i n ­ cum bents and on th e e l e c t o r a t e ; t o th e l a t t e r i t c o n s t i t u t e s a s o r t o f r e s e r v e d e f e n s iv e

armament f o r t h e day o f em ergency,

t o u se a p o p u la r e x p r e s s io n

o f th e d a y .

The b e s t method o f rem oving u n f i t ju d g e s i s th e p e r io d ­ i c su b m is sio n o f th e incum bent ju d g e* s r e c o r d t o th e e l e c t o r ­ a t e f o r a p p ro v a l o r d is a p p r o v a l by m e re ly v o tin g on w h eth e r o r h o t he sh o u ld be c o n tin u e d i n o f f i c e , w ith no o p p o sin g c a n d id a te a p p e a rin g a g a in s t him a t th e same e l e c t i o n .

21

I b i d . , S e c tio n 3 .

That

155

method p r e s e r v e s a l l t h a t i s v a lu a b le in t h e o ld e l e c t i v e sy ste m i n t h e way o f p o p u la r c o n t r o l o f ju d g e s , w ith o u t t h e d is a d v a n ta g e s t h a t grow o u t o f th e n e c e s s i t y o f cam paigning a g a in s t O pposing c a n d id a te s *

In sp e a k in g ab o u t t h i s m ethod,

A lb e r t M. K a le s , t w e n ty - f iv e y e a rs ag o , t o l d th e M inneso ta S t a t e B ar A s s o c i a t i o n ; Why anyone who h as l i v e d u n d e r th e s o - c a l le d e l e c ­ t i v e sy stem o f Judges f o r y e a r s sh o u ld be w o rrie d by su ch a p la n o f r e c a l l judge p e r i o d i c a l l y ru n n in g a g a i n s t h i s own r e c o r d a s a d an g ero u s in n o v a tio n i s a m y s te ry t o me. P e r s o n a l l y I would much p r e f e r th e p e r i o d i c su b m issio n o f th e ju d g e* s name t o th e e l e c ­ t o r a t e w ith th e q u e s tio n : " S h a ll he be c o n tin u e d in o f f i c e ? " t o th e su b m issio n o f th e same q u e s tio n a t any tim e upon a r e c a l l e l e c t i o n b e in g i n i t i a t e d by p e t i t i o n . My f e a r i s t h a t f o r e v e ry tim e th e e l e c t o r a t e r e a l l y w ished t o u se t h e r e c a l l , w hich m ight be i n i t i a t e d a t any tim e t h e r e w ould be a hundred tim e s when p o w e rfu l p o l i t i c a l o r g a n iz a tio n l e a d e r s b y i t s u s e , o r t h r e a t ­ ened u s e , would s e r i o u s l y i n t e r f e r e w ith th e p ro p e r e x e r c i s e o f th e j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n . 22 T h is m ethod o f s u b m ittin g ju d g e s p e r i o d i c a l l y t o th e e l e c t o r a t e f o r a p p r o v a l o r d is a p p r o v a l w ith o u t o p p o sin g can­ d i d a t e s , as a d v ite d by A lb e r t M. K a le s , In 1.914, was ad o p ted i n C a l i f o r n ia i n 1934 w here i t was known a s th e Commonwealth Club P l a n .

The e l e c t i o n in C a l i f o r n i a in November, 1938,

a f f o r d e d an o p p o r tu n ity t o t e s t th e r e a c t i o n on t h e v o te r s t o t h i s new p la n w h ich , a t th e p r e s e n t tim e , a p p l i e s o n ly t o t h e suprem e and a p p e l l a t e c o u rt ju d g e s .

The a f f i r m a t i v e v o te

A lb e r t M. K a le s, "M ethods o f S e l e c t i n g and R e t i r i n g J u d g e s ." J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a t u r e S o c ie ty , XI (F e b ru a ry , 1 9 2 8 ), 1 3 3 .

136

f o r t h e incum bents meant t h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e i r te rm o f o f f i c e f o r a n o t h e r tw e lv e y e a r s .

T h is b e in g t h e f i r s t e s t o f t h i s

s y ste m i n a c t u a l p r a c t i c e , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o a n a ly z e t h e re su lts.

F&r t h e c h i e f j u s t i c e t h e n e g a t i v e v o te was 3 2 .3

p e r c e n t o f t h e v o te s c a s t , and f o r t h e most r e c e n t a p p o i n t \ 23 eetehe n e g a t i v e v o te was 3 3 .7 p e r c e n t . These r e s u l t s would seem t o i n d i c a t e t h a t by t h i s method t h e w o rth y Judges a r e s e c u r e i n t h e i r t e n u r e and t h a t Judge who s h o u ld be e l i m i n ­ a t e d w i l l be rem oved.

The r e a s o n s a s s i g n e d f o r t h e n e g a t i v e

v o te make an i n t e r e s t i n g a n a l y s i s , t o o .

The f o l l o w i n g o p in ­

io n s a r e from B. G rant T a y lo r , c l e r k o f t h e suptem e C o u rt: . . . t h e p e r c e n t a g e s i n d i c a t e t h e c o n s t a n t *agin t h e g o v e rn m e n tf a t t i t u d e i n t h e s t a t e . A no ther i s t h a t t h e sy stem o f a p p r o v in g r a t h e r t h a n e l e c t i n g t h e ju d g es i s new i n t h e s t a t e and t h a t many v o t e r s d is a p p r o v e t h e s y ste m , o r b e l i e v e t h e t w e l v e - y e a r s te r m t o o lo n g , o r t h a t *t h e r e a r e a l r e a d y t o o many j u d g e s , * . . . t h a t t h e *ham and e g g s f r a d i o cam paign, w hich in c lu d e d an admon­ i t i o n t o w r i t e i n t h e name o f one o f i t s p ro p o n e n ts who had been an u n s u c c e s s f u l c a n d id a te f o r a t t o r n e y - g e n e r a l i n t h e August p r im a r y , a l s o c a r r i e d t h e a d m o n itio n : *Vote a g a i n s t a l l j u s t i c e s b ec au se we a r e g o in g t o e l e c t a new g o v e rn o r and he w i l l be a b le t o f i l l t h o s e p o s i ­ t i o n s w i t h o u r f r i e n d s . * . . . t h a t i n view o f t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f e l e c t i n g . a D em ocratic g o v e rn o r f o r t h e f i r s t tim e i n f o r t y y e a r s , a l l D em ocrats sh o u ld h e lp c r e a t e v a c a n c ie s i n o f f i c e h e ld by R e p u b lic a n s so t h a t t h e g o v e rn o r m ight rew ard h i s s u p p o r t e r s . 2^ The t w o - t h i r d s v o te f o r t h e incu m b en ts i n t h e f a c e o f

2 5 U nsigned a r t i c l e , ^ C a l i f o r n i a V o te rs Confirm Judges* T e n u r e .” J o u r n a l o f t h e American J u d i c a t u r e S o c i e t y , tXXI ( F e b ru a ry , 1 9 3 9 ), 202.

l o c . cit

137 su ch p r e j u d i c e s c o n firm s t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e r e i s no d an g er t h a t t h e p u b l i c w i l l be d e p r iv e d o f t h e s e r v i c e s o f a w o rth y judge when t h e b a l l o t a f f o r d s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a c l e a r - c u t d e c i s i o n by t h e e l e c t o r a t e . The Commonwealth-Club p l a n t a k e s t h e ju d g e s o u t o f p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s so f a r a s t h a t i s p o s s i b l e .

Some o f t h e

p ro p o s e d p l a n s a lo n g t h i s l i n e s p e c i f i c a l l y p ro v id e t h a t no ju d g e s h a l l p a r t i c i p a t e d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y —b y g i v i n g tim e o r money o r o t h e r w i s e —t o an y p o l i t i c a l cam paign.

By

t h i s p r o h i b i t i o n t h e f u l l b e n e f i t s o f t h e p l a n s h o u ld be re a liz e d . R e tire m e n t p e n s io n s a l s o a r e im p o rta n t i n t h e m a t t e r of ju d ic ia l te n u re .

Most o f t h e p r e s e n t p ro p o se d p l a n s f o r

an a p p o i n t i v e method o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g es do n o t c o n t a i n p r o v is io n s , f o r r e t i r e m e n t and p e n s i o n s . h i g h l y d e s i r a b l e In any p l a n .

Such p r o v i s i o n s a r e

While s e c u r e t e n u r e i s n e c e s ­

s a r y t o a t t r a c t men t o t h e b e n c h and t o g iv e Incum bents t h a t in d ep en d e n ce t h a t w i l l i n s u r e f a i r an i m p a r t i a l p e r fo rm ­ ance o f j u d i c i a l d u t i e s , I t I s l i k e w i s e im p o r ta n t t h a t on t h e r e t i r e m e n t o f a judge who has f a i t h f & l l y s e rv e d s o c i e t y , where such r e t i r e m e n t comes a f t e r a lo n g p e r i o d o f s e r v i c e and b e c a u s e o f age o r d i s a b i l i t y , he sh o u ld be g iv e n a p e n ­ sio n .

I t ' i s u n f a i ^ t o a s k a man t o g iv e t h e b e s t y e a r s o f

h i s l i f e t o p u b l i c s e r v i c e and a t t h e end o f h i s u s e f u l n e s s t o t u r n him o u t o f o f f i c e w it h o u t p r o v i d i n g some form o f

138 economic s e c u r i t y ,

The o r d i n a r y l a b o r e r , th r o u g h t h e o ld -a g e

a n n u i t y f e a t u r e s o f t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t, i s g iv e n such p ro te c tio n . In t h e f e d e r a l j u d i c i a l sy s te m t h e ju d g es h o ld o f f i c e f o r l i f e w ith r e t i r e m e n t p ay a f t e r s e v e n ty , s u b j e c t o n ly t o a most rem ote p o s s i b i l i t y o f impeachment o r rem o v al b e f o r e a rriv in g a t th a t age.

A lthou gh t h e Sumner B i l l makes them

rem ovable f o r " o t h e r t h a n good b e h a v io r " by a l e s s cumbersome j u d i c i a l , p ro c e d u re t h a n by im peachm ent, l i f e te n u re s t i l l c o n tin u e s.

S3

n e v e rth e le s s , th e

h i f e t e n u r e a f f o r d s t h e m axi­

mum s e c u r i t y I n o f f i c e , w h ile t h e s y s te m w hich s u b j e c t s a judge e v e ry y e a r o r so t o th e o n s la u g h t o f a h o s t o f oppos­ in g c a n d id a te s a t a g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n , a f f o r d s t h e ' minimum s e c u r i t y in o f f i c e .

The Commonwealth-Club p l a n seems t o be

a happy compromise betw een t h e s e two e x tre m e s ; i t p o s s e s s e s most o f t h e v i r t u e s o f each sy stem w ith o u t many o f t h e i r o b je c tio n a b le f e a tu r e s . The p re d ic a m e n t o f a judge who I s c o n s t a n t l y con­ f r o n t e d w i t h t h e n e x t - p o l i t i c a l - c a m p a i g n bogy, a c c o r d in g t o Lummus, am ounts t o t h i s : A judge i n o f f i c e f o r a te rm o f y e a r s who does n o t c o n s i d e r t h e coming e l e c t i o n i n v i t e s a i p a r t y r 's crown— and many deem a m a rty r onl$r a g l o r i o u s s o r t o f f o o l . Why, In d e e d , i t may be a s k e d , sh o u ld a judge r i s k h i s

25

S u p r a , p p . 122-23

139 l i v e l i h o o d f o r tlie sake o f a p e o p le who v a lu e im p ar­ t i a l J u s t i c e so l i t t l e t h a t t h e y d e l i b e r a t e l y s e t him on an u n s t a b l e p e r c h t o be pushed and J o s t l e d by e v e ry i n d i v i d u a l and e v e ry group t h a t can make c la im t o p o l i t i c a l power* Those on t h e o p p o s i te s i d e o f t h e q u e s t i o n u s u a l l y s e t up a c r y o f " v e s t e d i n t e r e s t s " a s b e in g r e s p o n s i b l e f o r k e e p in g t h e f e d e r a l J u d i c i a r y on a l i f e - t e n u r e b a s i s * W a lte r C la rk , C h ie f J u s t i c e o f t h e Supreme C ourt o f N o rth C a r o l i n a , h a s t h i s p o i n t o f view : As t o t h e U n ite d S t a t e s Ju d g es, th o u g h b i l l a f t e r b i l l h a s b ee n i n tr o d u c e d i n t o C on gress t o change t h e i r l i f e t e n u r e i n t o t e n u r e f o r a te rm o f y e a r s , and t h e i r method o f a p p o in tm e n t i n t o e l e c t i o n by t h e p e o p le o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e d i s t r i c t s and c i r c u i t s o v e r w hich t h e y p r e s i d e , t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e g r e a t v e s te d i n t e r e s t s h a s p o stp o n e d t h e a d o p tio n o f t h e p ro p o se d m e a s u re * 2 7 On t h e q u e s t i o n o f t e n u r e o f o f f i c e f o r Ju d g es, t h e p re p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v id e n c e seems t o be i n f a v o r o f a sy ste m modeled more o r l e s s a f t e r t h e p a t t e r n o f t h e Common28 w e a lth - C lu b p l a n .

pfi

Henry T. Lummus,

27

0£.

c i t *, p* 9 2 .

W a lte r C la r k , Government b y J u d g e s , Document No* 610, S e n a t e , S i x t y - t h i r d C o n g re ss, second s e s s i o n , (W ashing­ t o n : U n ite d S t a t e s Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , O ctober 21, 1 9 1 4 ), p . 4 . 8 8 “Supra, p . 130

PART I I IMPROVING COURT PROCEDURE

CHAPTER VII A SURVEY OF THE PROGRESS MADE IN IMPROVING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN FEDERAL AID AND IN ARIZONA COURTS The p ro b lem of* im p ro v in g t h e J u d i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f J u s t i c e In c i v i l c a s e s I n v o lv e s t h e p ro b le m o f Im proving t h e r u l e s o f c o u r t p ro c e d u re *

T h is s tu d y d oes n o t i n c lu d e

c r i m i n a l p ro c e d u re e x c e p t a s i t may be to u c h e d upon I n c i ­ d e n ta lly . There a r e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t F in d s o f c o n t r o l o v e r c o u r t p ro ced u re.

The e x i s t e n c e o f any one o f t h e s e t h r e e i n a

J u d i c i a l sy stem e x c lu d e s t h e o t h e r tw o .

These t h r e e a r e :

( 1 ) common law p r o c e d u r e w hich was I n h e r i t e d fro m E n g lan d — a s y s te m o f c o u r t p ro c e d u re w hich came a b o u t b y e v o l u t i o n o v e r c e n t u r i e s o f grow th o f t h e J u d i c i a l sy ste m In E ngland and w hich p r a c t i c a l l y h a s become unknown i n c o u r t p ro c e d u re In t h e

U n ite d S t a t e s e x c e p t f o r a few t r a c e s o f i t h e r e

th e re ;

( 2 ) code p r o c e d u r e —t h a t I s , c o u r t p ro c e d u re p r e ­

and

s c r i b e d by t h e a c t s o f a l e g i s l a t u r e , a p ro c e d u r e begun in New York S t a t e w i t h t h e s o - c a l l e d F i e l d Code i n 1848 w hich s p re a d t o a l l t h e o t h e r s t a t e s ; 1 (3) p ro c e d u r e u n d e r c o u r t made r u l e s , a p ro c e d u re w hieh i s c o n s id e r e d a t l e n g t h i n t h e r e m a in d e r o f t h i s t h e s i s .

1

I n f r a , p p . 1 4 8 -5 0 .

142 These c o u rt-m a d e r u l e s - - t h e t h i r d g ro u p p r e c e d i n g — may he s u b d iv id e d i n t o two c l a s s e s .

In t h e f i r s t c l a s s a r e

t h o s e r u l e s w hich a r e s o l e l y f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s . These a r e r e g u l a t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n r u l e s even th o u g h , I n a c c u r ­ a te ly , th ey o fte n are c a lle d r u l e s .

These r e g u l a t i o n s a r e

co n cern ed w i t h t h e b u s i n e s s s i d e o f t h e c o u r t .

In c lu d e d a r e

su c h r e g u l a t i o n s a s f i x i n g o f f i c e h o u rs f o r Ju d g es, r e g u l a t ­ in g t h e c o u r t c a le n d a r* d i s t r i b u t i n g c a s e s among t h e v a r io u s d i v i s i o n s In J u r i s d i c t i o n s w hich have more t h a n one Judge, e s t a b l i s h i n g r e q u ir e m e n t s c o n c e rn in g b r i e f s and t h e i r f i l i n g , and many o t h e r su c h p u r e l y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s . have l i t t l e

These

o r no e f f e c t upon t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e J u s t i c e d i s ­

p en se d by our c o u r t s ; t h e r e f o r e t h i s r e s e a r c h h a s n o t been co n c ern ed w ith mere r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h a t h i n d .

Such r e g u l a t i o n s

m e re ly supplem ent t h e c o u r t p ro c e d u re w h e th e r t h a t p ro c e d u re be u n d e r a l e g i s l a t i v e code o r u n d e r r u l e s p ro m u lg a te d by t h e c o u rts. The secon d c l a s s o f co u rt-m ad e r u l e s a r e t h o s e which s u p p l a n t code p r o c e d u r e ; t h i s i n v o lv e s a t r a n s f e r o f t h e r u l e m aking f u n c t i o n from t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e c o u r t s .

T h is

c l a s s o f c o u rt-m a d e r u l e s n o t o n ly h a s a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e on t h e q u a l i t y o f J u s t i c e d is p e n s e d by t h e c o u r t , b u t i n many c c a s e s t h e outcome o f l i t i g a t i o n depends upon t h e s e r u l e s o f pro ced u re.

The a d v a n ta g e s t o be d e r iv e d from t r a n s f e r r i n g

t h e r u le - m a k in g f u n c t i o n from t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e c o u r t s ,

143

as w e l l a s t h e l e g a l i t y and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f law s which T e s t t h e ru le - m a k in g power i n t h e c o u r t s , a r e t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h e re m a in d e r o f t h i s t h e s i s * On S eptem ber 16, 1938, t h e new r u l e o f

cI t I I

proced­

u r e f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u rts o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s went i n t o e ffe c t.

T h is d a t e w i l l go down i n h i s t o r y a s m arking t h e

b e g in n in g o f t h e g r e a t e s t r e f o r m i n c i v i l p r o c e d u r e s i n c e t h e b i r t h o f t h i s n a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y in t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s and most o f t h e s t a t e c o u r ts *

These new f e d ­

e r a l r u l e s , w hich a r e now j u s t t h r e e y e a r s o l d , a r e becom ing t h e p a t t e r n f o r new r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e i n s t a t e c o u r t s ; i n f a c t , some s t a t e s , I n c lu d i n g A riz o n a , a l r e a d y have a d o p te d new r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re modeled a f t e r t h e p a t t e r n o f t h e fed eral ru le s .

The w ornout code p ro c e d u re w ith w h ich

A riz o n a h a s s t r u g g l e d s i n c e t e r r i t o r i a l days h a s b e e n r e p l a c ­ ed b y t h e new modern p r o c e d u r e b a se d on r u l e s a d o p te d by t h e Supreme C ourt w hich went i n t o e f f e c t J a n u a r y 1 , 1940. The e f f e c t o f t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e hew f e d e r a l r u l e s upon t h e s t a t e s i s t y p i f i e d b y t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e p r o g r e s s made i n A riz o n a i n b r i n g i n g a b o u t t h e change i n i t s r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro ced u re. A f t e r C ongress had p a s s e d t h e Act o f June 19, 1934, ( c . 651, 48 S t a t . 1064; U .S .C . t i t l e

28, s e c . 723c) w hich

gave t h e Supreme C ourt o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s t h e power $ro p r e s c r ib e th e r u l e s of c i v i l p ro ced u re in th e f e d e r a l c o u rts ,

144

and b e f o r e t h e C ourt had a d o p te d t h e p r e s e n t r u l e s p u r s u a n t t o t h a t a u t h o r i t y , t h e A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il began a move­ ment t o a c c o m p lis h t h e same r e s u l t s i n t h e S t a t e c o u r t s o f A r iz o n a .

The f i n d i n g s o f t h e A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il, a s

p e r i t s r e p o r t o f A p r i l , 1937, was t h e f i r s t s t e p t a k e n .

The

f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s a r e t a k e n from t h i s r e p o r t : 1 . That t h e m ethods o f p ro c e d u re and p r a c t i c e now u se d and fo llo w e d i n A riz o n a o f t e n r e s u l t i n d e c i s i o n s b a s e d upon t e c h n i c a l i t i e s o f p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s r a t h e r t h a n upon t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s i e s . 2 . That C ongress h a s d e l e g a t e d t h e power t o t h e U n ite d S t a t e s Supreme C ourt t o a d o p t u n ifo rm r u l e s f o r p ro c e d u re i n f e d e r a l c o u r t s i n b o th law and e q u i t y cases:

3 . T hat i f r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re i n t h e s t a t e and f e d e r a l c o u r t s i n A riz o n a a r e t o conform one t o t h e o t h e r , t h e r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t s must be made t o conform t o t h o s e o f t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s ; t h a t su ch c o n f o rm ity i s d e s i r a b l e . 4 . T hat t h e r e i s need f o r a g e n e r a l change i n t h e m ethods o f p ro c e d u re and p r a c t i c e i n t h e c o u r t s o f A riz o n a . 3. T hat i t would be a d i s t i n c t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o and a i d i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f J u d t i c e i n A riz o n a i f t h e S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e would d e l e g a t e t o t h e Supreme Court o f t h i s s t a t e t h e power t o make r u l e s f o r p r a c t i c e and p ro ced u re in th e s t a t e c o u r ts . % Based on t h e s e f i n d i n g s , t h e A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il recommended t h a t t h e r e be s u b m itte d t o t h e n e x t l e g i s l a t u r e a

F i r s t R e p o rt o f t h e A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il, A p r i l , 1937, p p . 6 - 7 .

145

t o convene i n 1939, a p ro p o sed a c t v e s t i n g t h e Supreme Court o f A riz o n a w ith s i m i l a r r u le - m a k in g powers and a b o l i s h i n g t h e code r u l e s * At a l a t e r m e e tin g o f t h e J u d i c i a l C o u n c il, h e ld i n P h o e n ix on March 12, 1958, i t was d e c id e d t h a t t h e m a t t e r o f t h e enactm en t o f t h e p ro p o se d s t a t u t e was o f su ch param ount im p o rta n c e t o t h e p e o p l e , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , t h e b en ch , and t h e B ar o f t h e s t a t e t h a t t h e J u d i c i a l C o u n c il r e s o l v e d i t " s h o u ld u n d e r ta k e no o t h e r work o r make f u r t h e r s t u d i e s , u n ­ t i l t h i s p ro p o se d s t a t u t e h as been f a i r l y and f u l l y p r e s e n t ed t o t h e A riz o n a L e g i s l a t u r e f o r p a s s a g e * "

3

The p ro p o s e d s t a t u t e was s u b m itte d t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1939, and t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t was p a s s e d and l a t e r , on F e b ru a ry 4 , 1939, ap p ro v ed b y t h e g o v e r n o r . CHAPTER 8 , SENATE BILL NO. 26. AN ACT RELATING TO RULES OF PLEADING, PRACTICE, AND PROCEDURE, AND AUTHOR­ IZING THE SUPREME COURT TO PRESCRIBE SUCH RULES FOR ALL COURTS. Be I t e n a c te d by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e o f t h e S t a t e o f A riz o n a : S e c t i o n 1 . R u le s o f p l e a d i n g , p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e . The Supreme C o u rt, by r u l e s p ro m u lg a te d from tim e t o ti m e , s h a l l r e g u l a t e p l e a d i n g , p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re In j u d i c i a l p ro c eed in g s in a l l c o u rts of th e s t a t e , f o r t h e p u rp o se o f s i m p l i f y i n g t h e same and o f p ro m o tin g t h e s p e e d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n upon i t s m e r i t s . Such r u l e s s h a l l n o t a b r i d g e , e n l a r g e o r m odify t h e s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s o f any l i t i g a n t . . . . . . . ® Second R e p o rt o f t h e A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il, A p r i l , 1938, p . 3 .

146 S e c t i o n 2 . S t a t e Bar a d v i s o r y b o a r d . The s t a t e b a r , o r a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e group t h e r e o f s e l e c t e d by s a i d b a r , s h a l l a c t as an a d v i s o r y b o a rd and s h a l l , e i t h e r v o l ­ u n t a r i l y o r upon r e q u e s t o f a m a j o r i t y o f t h e judges o f t h e supreme c o u r t , c o n s u l t w i th , recommend t o , or a d v i s e t h e c o u r t on any m a t t e r d e a l t w it h i n t h e r u l e s * Any member o f t h e s t a t e b a r o r any p r i v a t e c i t i z e n may o b j e c t i n w r i t i n g t o any r u l e o r p a r t t h e r e o f and may r e q u e s t c h a n g e s . The c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r su ch o b j e c ­ t i o n s and r e q u e s t s a s a d v ic e and i n f o r m a t i o n o n ly and may a c t t h e r e o n a t i t s d i s c r e t i o n * S e c t i o n 5 . E x i s t i n g s t a t u t e s deemed r u l e s o f c o u r t * A l l S t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o p l e a d i n g , p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e , e x i s t i n g a t t h e tim e t h i s a c t t a k e s e f f e c t s h a l l be deemed t o be r u l e s o f c o u r t and s h a l l re m a in i n e f f e c t a s such u n t i l m o d ifie d o r suspended by r u l e s p ro m u lg ated p u r s u a n t t o t h i s ac t* P u r s u a n t t o t h e a u t h o r i t y v e s te d i n t h e Supreme C ourt by t h i s a c t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , t h e c o u r t p ro m u lg a te d r u l e s of civil procedure for the courts of Arizona Ydiich became

e f f e c t i v e J a n u a ry 1, 1940.

A cco rd in g t o t h e c o u r t ' s own

s t a t e m e n t , t h e s e r u l e s a r e " i n s u b s t a n c e , t h e new F e d e r a l B u ies o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , m o d ifie d i n a few i n s t a n c e s t o s u i t our l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s * 5 The new law am ounts t o a s u r r e n d e r o f t h e ru le - m a k in g power by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n f a v o r o f t h e c o u r t .

S in c e t h i s

h a s been acco m p lish ed b y l e g i s l a t i v e en a c tm e n tsa n d n o t by c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e r e t a i n s t h e power

4 S e s s io n Laws o f A riz o n a , F o u r t e e n t h L e g i s l a t u r e , R e g u la r S e s s i o n , 1939; C h a p te r 8 , S e n a te B i l l No. 26 . P r e f a c e t o R u le s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e S u p e r io r C o u rts o f A riz o n a (P h o e n ix : S t a t e Bar o f A r iz o n a , 1945}, p . 1 .

147

t o d i v e s t tile Supreme C ourt o f t h e r u le - m a k in g p r e r o g a t i v e and t o r e - i n v e s t i t s e l f w ith t h a t a u t h o r i t y i n t h e e v e n t t h e e x p e rim e n t sh o u ld p ro v e t o he u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ; i n o t h e r w ords, t h i s does n o t amount t o an u n re v o c a b le s u r r e n d e r o f t h a t power by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e —t h a t i s ,

i f th e l e g i s l a t u r e l e g a l ­

l y had been i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h a t power up t o t h i s ti m e , a p o i n t w hich i s v e r y d o u b t f u l and w hich i s n o t conceded by em inent l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s .

That p h a se o f t h e q u e s t i o n i s

c o n s id e r e d a s a s e p a r a t e p a r t o f t h i s s t u d y .

6

The same may be s a i d of t h e Act o f C ongress which gave t h e U n ite d S t a t e s Supreme C ourt t h e power t o make r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re f o r t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t s —T h at i s , t h a t C ongress may r e - i n v e s t i t s e l f w ith t h e r u le - m a k in g p r e ­ r o g a t i v e w hich i t had e x e r c i s e d u n t i l th e Act o f June 19, 1934, t r a n s f e r r e d t h a t a u t h o r i t y t o t h e Supreme C o u rt. I t i s n o t a new ex p e rim e n t t o t r a n s f e r t h e e n t i r e r u le - m a k in g a u t h o r i t y from t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e c o u r t . number o f s t a t e s have fo u n d , a f t e r a f a i r t e s t , t h a t i t i s w orking v e r y s a t i s f a c t o r i l y .

In t h e S t a t e o f W ashington

t h i s e x p e rim e n t was u n d e r ta k e n a s e a r l y a s 1925.

In th a t

s t a t e t h e c o u r t was g iv e n power t o make ruXes f o r b o th c r i m i n a l and c i v i l p r o c e d u r e .

Most s i m i l a r e x p e rim e n ts

t h u s f a r have been c o n fin e d t o c i v i l p ro c e d u re o n l y .

6

I n f r a , C h ap ter V I I I , p p . 1 4 6 - 1 5 6 .

The

A

148 wide scope o f t h e W ashington Act i s a p p a r e n t from i t s p h r a s e ­ o lo g y .

A f t e r t h e e n u m e ra tio n o f a number of s p e c i f i c powers

c o n f e r r e d upon t h e c o u r t , t h e a c t c o n t i n u e s : * . . and g e n e r a l l y t o r e g u l a t e and p r e s c r i b e by r u l e t h e form s f o r and t h e k in d and t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e e n t i r e p l e a d i n g , p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re t o be u se d i n a l l s u i t s , a c t i o n s , a p p e a l s and p ro c e e d in g s o f w h a t­ e v e r n a t u r e ^ I t a l i c s no'fc o r i g i n a l ] by t h e Supreme C o u rt, S u p e r i o r C o u rts and J u s t i c e s o f t h e P eace o f t h e S t a t e o f W ash in g to n . I n p r e s c r i b i n g such r u l e s t h e Supreme C ourt s h a l l have r e g a r d t o t h e s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e sy stem o f p l e a d i n g , p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re i n s a i d c o u r ts t o prom ote t h e sp e e d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n on t h e m e r i t s . 7 The S t a t e o f D elaw are a l s o e n a c te d a s i m i l a r s t a t u t e i n t h e same y e a r a s t h e W ashington A c t, i n 1935.

Even p r i o r

t o t h a t y e a r , t h e s t a t e s o f C o lo ra d o , V i r g i n i a , and C o n n e c ti­ c u t had a d o p te d s i m i l a r s t a t u t e s .

Hew J e r s e y , t o o , had

gone a s f a r i n r e fo rm in g I t s p r o c e d u r e b y co u rt-m ad e ru j.es as th e c o n s titu tio n of th a t s ta te p erm itte d . The f u t i l i t y o f d ep e n d in g upon t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o make changes i n t h e r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re when changes a r e needed was d e m o n s tra te d i n A r iz o n a .

I n J u l y , 1934, a com­

m i t t e e on p r o c e d u r a l re fo rm o f t h e S t a t e Bar o f A riz o n a p r e p a r e d a program o f much needed l e g i s l a t i o n t o improve b o th c i v i l and c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r e .

In s p ite of th e e f f o r ts

S t a t e o f W ashington, Laws o f 1935, Ex S e s . , p . 18? (Rem., 1937, S u p ., S e c t i o n s 13^1 e t s e q . ) quoted i n S t a t e o f W ashington e x r e l . Foster-Wyman Lumber Co. v . The S u p e r i o r C ourt f o r King County, 148 Wash. 1, 367 P . 770 (May, 1 9 2 8 ).

149 of th e h a r a s s o c ia tio n , n e ith e r th e tw e lf th l e g i s l a t u r e in 1935 n o r t h e t h i r t e e n t h i n 1937 e n a c te d t h e p ro p o se d la w s . The new law i n A riz o n a p l a c e s f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y upon t h e Supreme C ourt t o s i m p l i f y p ro c e d u re so a s t o p r o ­ mote t h e s p e e d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n upon i t s m e r i t s . T h is l e a v e s no o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s h i f t i n g t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . That t h e Supreme Court h as no d e s i r e t o s h i f t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i ­ t y h a s b ee n d e c l a r e d b y i t even b e f o r e t h e enactm en t o f t h i s mew la w .

Xn a n t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n t law , t h e Supreme

C ourt d e c l a r e d : The members o f o u r Supreme C ourt have a u t h o r i z e d t h e J u d i c i a l C o u n c il t o s a y (a ) t h a t i t i s t h e i r i n t e n t i o n , i f t h e p ro p o se d r u le - m a k in g s t a t u t e i s passed by th e l e g i s l a t u r e , t o adopt th e F e d e ra l r u l e s o f c o u r t so f a r a s t h e same a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o o ur s t a t e p r a c t i c e , and (b) t h a t i t i s t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e members o f t h e Supreme C o u rt, i f s a i d s t a t u t e i s p a s s e d , t o r e q u e s t t h e s t a t e b a r t o a p p o in t a perman­ e n t com m ittee on p r o c e d u r e f o r t h e p u rp o se o f c o n s u l t i n g w it h t h e C ourt from tim e t o tim e a s t o what changes are a d v isa b le . 8 The Supreme C ourt h as f a i t h f u l l y c a r r i e d out t h e s e p le d g e s t h u s f a r .

I t h as a d o p te d r u l e s p a t t e r n e d a f t e r t h e

f e d e r a l r u l e s so f a r a s t h e same can be a p p l i e d t o t h e p r a c ­ t i c e i n t h e S t a t e C o u rts o f A riz o n a , and i t has worked w ith and c o n s u l t e d w i t h an a d v i s o r y com m ittee chosen by t h e b o ard og g o v e rn o rs o f t h e s t a t e b a r .

8

Second R ep o rt o f t h e A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il, op* c i t . » p . 3.

150

S in c e p r o c e d u r e i s m e re ly t h e m ach in ery h y w hich t h e c o u r t s f u n c t i o n , i t seems o n ly p r o p e r t h a t t h e c o u r t s them­ s e l v e s s h o u ld s e t up t h e i r own r u l e s *

Why s h o u ld t h e l e g i s ­

l a t u r e d e te r m in e t h e m ach in ery by w hich t h e c o u r ts do t h e i r work any more t h a n t h e c o u r ts s h o u ld d e te rm in e t h e m ach in ery by which t h e l e g i s l a t u r e sh o u ld do i t s work?

Each house o f

t h e l e g i s l a t u r e makes i t s own r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re * t h e u n o s t a d v a n ta g e o u s p o s i t i o n t o do t h a t . of th e c o u r ts .

I t i s in

The same i s t r u e

They a r e i n d a i l y c o n t a c t w i t h th e o p e r a t i o n s

o f t h e i r own r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re and s h o u ld be In a p o s i t i o n p ro m p tly t o c o r r e c t an y r u l e w hich t h e y f i n d i s f u n c t i o n i n g b a d ly *

Under fo rm e r c o n d i t i o n s , w ith t h e l e g i s l a t u r e m e e tin g

o n ly b i e n n i a l l y i n r e g u l a r s e s s i o n , and w it h t h e p r e s s u r e o f o t h e r m a t t e r s alw ays b e f o r e I t , t h e c o u r t s o f t e n have been com pelled t o s t r u g g l e a lo n g w ith a bad r u l e w hich t h e y knew was c a u s in g a m a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e * The A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il, i n i t s second r e p o r t ,

9

summarized t h e s i t u a t i o n a s i t was i n t h e p a s t when c o u rt p ro c e d u re was c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .

A cc o rd in g t o

t h i s r e p o r t , t h e r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re p r e s c r i b e d by t h e l e g i s ­ l a t u r e have b e e n r i g i d and I n f l e x i b l e and have n o t worked w e l l i n t h e c o u r ts *

They have caused u n n e c e s s a r y d e l a y ,

e x p e n s e , and u n c e r t a i n t y , w hich, o f c o u r s e , sometimes r e -

9

I b i d . , p*

6

*

151 s u i t e d i n t h e m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e and o f t e n a c t u a l l y cau sed i n j u s t i c e s .

The ju d g es and la w y e rs have had a good

a l i b i by sim p ly p l a c i n g t h e blame f o r su ch r e s u l t s on t h e sh o u ld ers of th e l e g i s l a t u r e .

S in c e a l l d i v i s i o n s o f

a u t h o r i t y betw een t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e c o u r t s have been e l i m i n a t e d now, t h e c o u r t s have no e s c a p e from f u l l re s p o n ­ s i b i l i t y f o r t h e r e s u l t s t h a t w i l l be a c h ie v e d .

A ccording

t o a pronouncem ent o f t h e A riz o n a Supreme C o u rt, i f t h e r e ­ s u l t s a r e n o t s a t i s f a c t o r y , a l l t h e l e g i s l a t u r e w i l l have t o do t o r e - i n v e s t i t s e l f w i th t h e r u le - m a k in g power i s t o r e ­ p e a l t h e new s t a t u t e w hich t r a n s f e r r e d t h i s power t o th e c o u r*t . 1 0 One o f t h e g r e a t e s t champions o f j u d i c i a l re fo rm , e s p e c ia lly f o r th e re fo rm a tio n of th e r u le s of p ro c ed u re, h as been W illia m Howard T a f t , C h ie f J u s t i c e o f t h e Supreme C o u rt, and P r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s .

Many y e a r s ago,

i n an a d d r e s s b e f o r e t h e "V irginia Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , he v o ic e d t h e s e n t i m e n t s o f t h e p r e s e n t - d a y movement f o r r e fo rm of j u d i c i a l p ro ced u re.

H is d e s i r e t o e q u a l i z e j u s t i c e f o r t h e

p o o r w i t h t h a t o f t h e r i c h was em phasized s t r o n g l y i n t h a t add ress: The re fo rm , i f i t i s t o come, m ust "be re a c h e d th r o u g h t h e improvement i n o u r j u d i c i a l p r o c e d u r e . I n t h e f i r s t p l a c e , t h e codes o f p ro c e d u re a r e g e n e r a l l y much to o

10 lo c.

cit.

. . . , Second R e p o rt o f t h e A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il,

152

e l a b o r a t e . I t I s p o s s i b l e t o have a code o f p ro c e d u re s im p le and e f f e c t i v e . T h is i s shown by t h e p r e s e n t p ro c e d u re In t h e E n g l i s h c o u r t s , most o f w hich I s fram ed by r u l e s o f c o u r t . The code o f t h e S t a t e o f Hew York I s s t a g g e r i n g in t h e number o f I t s s e c t i o n s . A s i m i l a r d e f e c t e x i s t s i n some c i v i l law c o u n t r i e s . The e l a b o r a t e S p a n is h code o f p ro c e d u re t h a t we found in t h e P h i l i p p i n e s when we f i r s t went t h e r e co u ld be u sed b y a d i l a t o r y d e f e n d a n t t o keep t h e p l a i n t i f f stam p in g i n t h e v e s t i b u l e o f j u s t i c e u n t i l tim e had made j u s t i c e I m p o s s ib l e . E v ery a d d i t i o n a l t e c h n i c a l i t y , e v e r y a d d i t i o n a l r u l e o f p ro c e d u re adds t o t h e expense o f l i t i g a t i o n . I t i s i n e v i t a b l e t h a t w i t h an e l a b o r a t e code, t h e ex p en se o f a s u i t i n v o l v i n g a s m a ll sum i a i n p r o p o r t i o n f a r g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t I n v o l v in g a l a r g e sum. Hence I t r e s u l t s t h a t t h e c o s t o f j u s t i c e t o t h e p o o r i s alw ays g r e a t e r t h a n i t i s t o t h e r i c h , assum ing t h a t t h e p o o r a r e more o f t e n i n t e r e s t e d i n s m a l l e a s e s t h a n t h e r i c h i n l a r g e o n e s — a f a i r l y r e a s o n a b l e a s s u m p tio n . I t i s a p p a re n t, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t w ith th e s i m p li f i c a ­ t i o n o f t h e r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re t h e j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e i n A r iz o n a —and i n a l l s t a t e s w hich a r e t u r n i n g t o t h e new fo rm u la o f cou rt-m ade r u l e s — s h o u ld be speeded up and improved im m ensely. I t i s a s a f e a s s u m p tio n t h a t even th o u g h t h e A riz o n a l e g i s l a t u r e m ight w ish t o r e - i n v e s t i t s e l f w i t h t h e ru le - m a k ­ in g power I t n e v e r w i l l do so a f t e r t h e p u b l i c have become th o r o u g h l y aware o f t h e good r e s u l t s t h a t a r e b e in g r e a l i z e d ■under t h e new r u l e s w hich became e f f e c t i v e on J a n u a r y 1, 1940.

11

James K. P o l l o c k , e d i t o r , R ead in g s i n Am erican Government (New Y ork: Henry H o lt and Company, ~T92 7 ), p . 285.

CHAPTER T i l l DOES THE RULE-MAZING POWER BELONG TO THE COURTS OR TO THE LEGISLATURES? When a l e g i s l a t u r e v e s t s t h e ru le - m a k in g power i n t h e C o u rt, i s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e r e a l l y s u r r e n d e r i n g one o f i t s in h ere n t p re ro g a tiv e s?

The c& urts made t h e i r own r u l e s lo n g

b e f o r e t h e r e was any l e g i s l a t i v e a tte m p t t o make su ch r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re f o r t h e c o u r ts *

The r u le - m a k in g pow er, t h e r e ­

f o r e , i s i n h e r e n t i n t h e c o u rt*

I t was d ev elo p ed by t h e

c o u r t s lo n g b e f o r e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s i n t e r f e r e d w i t h c o u r t p ro ced u re.

The a b u s e s and m i s c a r r i a g e s o f J u s t i c e u n d e r

common-lav/ p ro c e d u re prom pted t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n w h ich became a lm o st u n i v e r s a l i n t h e U n ite d S t a t e s * Under t h e common-law p r o c e d u r e , t h e r e c o u ld be an i n t e r c h a n g e o f p l e a d i n g s I n d e f i n i t e l y — one p a r t y a f f i r m i n g some f a c t and t h e o t h e r p a r t y den y in g i t — u n t i l an i s s u e was r e a c h e d .

T h is p r a c t i c e p e r m i t t e d i n d e f i n i t e d e l a y and

o f t e n made l i t i g a t i o n p r o h i b i t i v e l y e x p e n s iv e .

When t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e s began t o make t h e r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e , t h e y s to p p e d t h a t p r a c t i c e b y g e n e r a l l y l i m i t i n g t h i s i n t e r c h a n g e o f p l e a d i n g s t o two o r p e r h a p s t h r e e s t e p s . The a u t h o r i t y t o make r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e f o r t h e c o u r t s h a s s h i f t e d from one a u t h o r i t y t o a n o t h e r , making a co m p lete c y c l e .

F i r s t , t h e a u t h o r i t y was i n t h e c o u r t s

w here i t o r i g i n a t e d .

Then t h e l e g i s l a t u r e assumed t h e p r e -

154 r o g a t l v e ; and now I t i s on i t s way b a d e t o t h e c o u r t s a g a i n , how ever, w i t h a d i f f e r e n t t y p e o f J u d i c i a r y t o r e c e i v e t h a t power t h a n t h a t u n d e r w h ich t h e common-law p l e a d i n g s , w i t h a l l o f t h e i r t e c h n i c a l i t i e s and bunk, have e v o lv e d . The f i r s t s u r r e n d e r o f t h e r u le - m a k in g power b y t h e c o u r t s i n t h e U n ite d S t a t e s o c c u rre d i n t h e y e a r 18 01.

In

t h e same te rm o f t h e Supreme C ourt o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s in w hich t h e famous ea se o f M arbury v . M adison

1

was b e f o r e t h e

C o u rt, t h e r e was a n o t h e r famous c a se known a s t h e L a i r d c a s e . I t in v o lv e d t h e power o f C on gress t o r e p e a l t h e Act o f 1789 c re a tin g th e c i r c u it c o u rts .

I n 1801, w h ile t h e L a ir d case

was p e n d in g , C ongress r e p e a l e d t h e Act and a b o l i s h e d t h r e e te rm s o f t h e Supreme Court so t h a t i t sh o u ld n o t s i t a g a in u n t i l 1805.

C ongress w anted t o d e l a y a d e c i s i o n i n t h e L a i r d

c a s e u n t i l i t co u ld b r i n g p r e s s u r e t o b e a r on t h e Supreme C ourt t o uphold t h e s t a t u t e .

I f t h r e e te rm s o f c o u r t co u ld

be a b o l i s h e d b y C o n g re s s , a l l te rm s c o u ld be a b o l i s h e d . B ayard s a i d on t h e f l o o r o f t h e House t h a t C ongress c o u ld t h u s p r e v e n t t h e Supreme C ourt from e v e r s i t t i n g and so a b o l i s h t h e C ourt e n t i r e l y .

P h i l i p K a te s , In s p e a k in g o f

t h i s in c id e n t, s a id : . . . from M arbury v s . M adison i t seems t h a t n e c e s ­ s a r i l y c o n g re s s co u ld n o t sa y t o t h e c o u r t how i t ^ s h o u ld con duct i t s b u s i n e s s o f a d m i n i s t e r i n g J u s t i c e ;

M arbury v . M adison, 1 C ranch 137.

155 and i t s in d ep en d e n ce had been v i o l a t e d by t h e a c t a b o l i s h i n g t h e te rm s i n 1802* But t h e a c t was obeyed and t h e c o u r t d id n o t s i t u n t i l 1803 when i t u p h e ld th e r i g h t of congress to a b o lis h th e c i r c u i t c o u rts . From t h a t day on t h e supreme c o u r t o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s h as re c o g n iz e d i n C ongress a power o v e r p ro c e d u re w hich I b e l i e v e i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e whole s p i r i t o f t h e con­ s t i t u t i o n , and c e r t a i n l y c o n t r a r y t o t h e b a s i c r u l e i n M arbury v s . M adison, which was t h a t no one o f t h e t h r e e g r e a t b ra n c h e s o f t h e government may i n t e r f e r e w i t h a n ­ o th e r in th e d isc h a rg e of i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d u t i e s . "We have h e a rd much o f l a t e o f t h e p ro p o se d in n o v a t i o n o f p l a c i n g t h e f r u le - m a k in g p o w erf b a c k i n t h e c o u r t s .

Who

e v e r to o k i t away?" a sk e d Judge C h a rle s A. Lowe i n an a d d r e s s d e l i v e r e d b e f o r e t h e T h i r t y - s e v e n t h J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t Bar A s s o - ‘ c ia tio n .

T h is i s h i s own answ er t o t h e q u e s t i o n :

. . . Why s h o u ld any o t h e r b r a n c h o r d e p a rtm e n t o f government have t h e r i g h t t o l a y down r u l e s and r e g u ­ l a t i o n s f o r t h e c o u r t s , when t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n e x p r e s s l y c o n f e r s J u d i c i a l power upon t h e c o u r t s and c o u r t s a l o n e . . . . Would t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , f o r exam ple, subm it t o have i t s r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re d e te rm in e d and c o n t r o l l e d b y a n o t h e r and e n t i r e l y s e p a r a t e d e p a rtm e n t o f g o v e rn ­ ment? Would t h e supreme c o u rt o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e have t h e r i g h t t o p a s s r u l e s d e te r m in in g how t h e g o v e rn o r s h a l l e x e r c i s e h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r e r o g a t i v e s o f an e x e c u t i v e and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e nature?*-* The n e x t im p o r ta n t y e a r i n t h e h i s t o r y o f J u d i c i a l p ro c e d u re was 1848, t h e y e a r in which t h e movement f o r code p le a d in g s began.

That was t h e movement t o have t h e r u l e s o f

p r o c e d u r e l a i d down by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s i n s t e a d o f by t h e 2

P h i l i p K a te s , " J u d i c i a r y Must Conquer I n f e r i o r i t y Complex." J o u r n a l o f t h e Am erican J u d i c a t u r e S o c i e t y , XVTII (December, 1 9 3 4 ), 120. 3 Judge C h a rle s A. Lowe, "How To Keep L i t i g a t i o n in t h e C o u r t s ." J o u r n a l o f t h e Am erican J u d i c a t u r e S o c i e t y , X V III (O c to b e r, 1 9 3 4 ), 9 1 .

156 c o u r t s and t h u s t o a b o l i s h t h e o ld common-law p ro c e d u re w i t h i t s w o rsh ip o f p re c e d e n t*

T hat movement was s p o n so re d

by D avid D udley F i e l d ; i t began i n New York S t a t e and t h e o r i g i n a l code, w hich c o n ta in e d 391 s e c t i o n s , became known a s t h e F i e l d Code.

Though t h a t was a g r e a t s t e p fo rw a rd tow ard

im p ro v in g p ro c e d u re * we r e a l i z e t o d a y t h a t i t was a m is ta k e t o have t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s t e p i n t o t h e r u le - m a k in g a c t i v i t y . How t h e cod es o f p r o c e d u r e , b u i l t up by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s , b ro k e down from t h e i r own w e ig h t i n many s t a t e s , was p o i n t e d ou t by Homer Cummings i n h i s a d d r e s s t o t h e New York County Lawyers A s s o c i a t i o n : When t h e d e t a i l s o f p ro c e d u re a r e p r e s c r i b e d by s t a t u t e , e r r o r s can be cured o n ly by l e g i s l a t i o n . R e g u l a t i o n f o llo w s r e g u l a t i o n w ith b e w il d e r in g m u l t i ­ p l i c i t y u n t i l t h e r e i s c r e a t e d a m orass o f law s i n w hich t h e whole p r o f e s s i o n i s m ir e d . Thus, t h e F i e l d Code o f P ro c e d u re o -c a lle d because of i t s a u th o r, D avid D udley F i e l d a d o p te d i n New York i n 1848, con­ t a i n e d o n ly 391 s e c t i o n s . I t l a t e r grew t o 3 ,3 9 7 s e c t i o n s . The C a l i f o r n i a Code was amended 3423 tim e s i n 10 y e a r s . M a n i f e s t l y , p r o c e d u r a l q u e s t i o n s a r e to o t e c h n i c a l and t o o l a c k i n g i n p o p u l a r a p p e a l t o j e c e i v e a d e q u a te c o n s i d e r a t i o n by any l e g i s l a t i v e bo dy. From New York t h e c o d e - p le a d in g movement s p re a d t o a v a s t m a j o r i t y o f t h e s t a t e s o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s , and " c o u r t s w ere s t r a i t - j a c k e t e d by an i n f l e x i b l e p r o c e d u r e p r e s c r i b e d 5 by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . " These s t a t e s , f o l lo w i n g New York*s Homer Cummings, A tt o r n e y G e n e ra l, "Im m ediate P ro b ­ lems F or t h e B a r ." Docket (West P u b l i s h i n g Company) IV (Autumn, 1 9 3 4 ), 3699. 5 A m erican Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , R e p o rts o f t h e s e c t i o n o f J u d i c i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n t o t h e a n n u a l m eetIn g a t C le v e la n d , J u l y , 1938, p . 1 9 .

exam ple, u sed t h e F i e l d Code a s a m odel; t h e y became* known a s Code S t a t e s .

The r e s u l t s o f t h i s l e g i s l a t i v e c o n t r o l o v e r

c o u r t p r o c e d u r e , a c c o r d in g t o t h e Committee on J u d i c i a l Admin­ i s t r a t i o n of t h e A m erican B ar A s s o c i a t i o n , have b e e n : (1) d i v i s i o n o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y betw een c o u r t s and l e g i s l a t u r e s , (2)

in f le x ib le p ro ced u re,

(3) a mass o f d e c i s i o n s d e a l i n g

w i t h p r o c e d u r e a lo n e w hich must be fo llo w e d a s p r e c e d e n t s , (4) c o n t i n u a l l e g i s l a t i v e t i n k e r i n g , and (5) " t h e p r a c t i c i n g o f law b e f o r e a l e g i s l a t u r e by way o f amendments t o e x i s t i n g p r o c e d u r e , so a s t o a f f e c t f a v o r a b l y and u n f a v o r a b l y a c t i o n s p e n d in g and t o be b ro u g h t* "

6

"■Nothing d i s g u s t s t h e layman m o re ," s a y s t h e Bar A s s o c i a t i o n Committee r e p o r t , " t h a n a r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t h i s r i g h t s have b e e n d e te rm in e d upon a p o i n t o f p ro c e d u re and 7 t h a t t h e C o u rt d id n o t r e a c h t h e m e r i t s o f h i s claim * " A lth o u g h t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s have e x e r c i s e d t h e r u l e making power f o r n e a r l y a c e n tu r y , t h e r e i s e x c e l l e n t a u t h o r ­ i t y , from a h i s t o r i c a l a s w e l l a s l e g a l p o i n t o f view , t h a t t h e making o f r u l e s g o v e rn in g p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re i n c o u r t s i s not a t a l l a l e g i s l a t i v e , but p u re ly a ju d ic ia l fu n c tio n . As e a r l y a s 1792 t h e C i r c u i t C o u rts o f t h e U n ited S t a t e s w ere c o n f r o n te d w ith t h e q u e s t i o n o f h a v in g C ongress

158 p r e s c r i b e c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s f o r them w h ich, t h e c o u r t s co n ­ te n d e d , t h e y co u ld n o t p e r fo rm b e c a u s e t h e y w ere n o n - j u d i c i a l . T hat c o n t r o v e r s y betw een t h e l e g i s l a t i v e and t h e j u d i c i a l b ra n c h o f t h e Government a r o s e when C ong ress p a s s e d t h e Act o f March 25, 1791, e n t i t l e d , " A n Act t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e c la im s o f widows and o rp h a n s b a r r e d by t h e l i m i t a t i o n s h e r e t o f o r e e s t a b l i s h e d , and t o r e g u l a t e t h e c la im s t o i n v a l i d p e n s i o n s T h e a c t r e q u i r e d t h e c o u r ts t o examine and t o r e p o r t an o p in io n on t h e u n f o r t u n a t e c a s e s o f o f f i c e r s and s o l d i e r s d i s a b l e d i n t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e U n ited S t a t e s d u r in g t h e War o f Independence*

These o p i n i o n s o f

t h e c o u r t on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e p e n s io n c la im s o f t h e r e s p e c ­ t i v e a p p l i c a n t s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e A c t, were t o be s u b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n by t h e S e c r e t a r y o f War and C o n g re ss, t h u s making th e c o u rts s u b o rd in a te , in t h a t r e s p e c t, t o th e l e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t iv e b ra n c h o f t h e Government* I n a j o i n t l e t t e r from t h e ju d g es o f t h e C i r c u i t C ou rt f o r t h e d i s t r i c t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia t o t h e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s on A p r i l 18, 179E, t h e s e f u d g e s , i n ex­ p l a i n i n g t h e i r r e a s o n s f o r n o t p ro c e e d in g a s d i r e c t e d by t h e Act o f C o n g re ss, s t a t e d t o t h e P r e s i d e n t s Upon due c o n s i d e r a t i o n , we have b ee n u n an im o u sly o f o p in io n , t h a t , . . . th e C irc u it co u rt h eld f o r th e P e n n s y lv a n ia d i s t r i c t co u ld n o t p r o c e e d ; 1 s t . B ecause t h e b u s i n e s s d i r e c t e d by t h i s a c t i s n o t o f a j u d i c i a l n a t u r e . I t forms no p a r t o f t h e power v e s te d by t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n i n t h e c o u r t s o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s ; t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t must c o n s e q u e n tly have p r o ­ ceeded w ith o u t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y .

159 2 nd. B eca u se, i f upon t h a t b u s i n e s s , t h e c o u r t had p ro c e e d e d , i t s Judgment ( f o r i t s o p in io n s a r e i t s ju dgm ents) m ig h t, u n d e r t h e same a c t , have b een r e ­ v i s e d and c o n t r o l l e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , and by an o f f i ­ c e r i n t h e e x e c u t iv e d e p a r tm e n t. S e c r e t a r y o f War Such r e v i s i o n and c o n t r o l we deemed r a d i c a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e in d ep en d e n ce o f t h a t j u d i c i a l power w hich i s v e s t e d i n t h e c o u r t s ; and c o n s e q u e n tly , w i t h t h a t im­ p o r t a n t p r i n c i p l e w hich i s so s t r i c t l y o b serv e d by t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s . 8 The ju d g e s o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r t h e d i s t r i c t o f N o rth C a r o l i n a a l s o a d d r e s s e d a j o i n t l e t t e r t o t h e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s , d a te d June S, 1792.

They w ro te s u b ­

s t a n t i a l l y t h e same a s tile Judges from t h e P e n n s y lv a n ia d i s t r i c t had w r i t t e n , b u t a t g r e a t e r l e n g t h .

With r e f e r e n c e

t o t h e in d ep en d e n ce o f t h e c o u r t s from C o n g ress, t h e y s a i d : . . . And we beg l e a v e t o add, w ith a l l due d e f e r ­ e n c e , t h a t no d e c i s i o n o f any c o u r t o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s ca n , u n d e r any c i r c u m s ta n c e s , i n our o p in io n , a g r e e a b l e t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n , be l i a b l e t o a r e v e r ­ s i o n , o r even s u s p e n s i o n , by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i t s e l f , i n whom no j u d i c i a l power o f any k in d a p p e a r t o be v e s t e d , b u t t h e im p o r ta n t one r e l a t i v e t o im peach­ ment J* The C i r c u i t C ourt f o r t h e d i s t r i c t o f New York had t h e f o l l o w i n g t o s a y on t h e same q u e s t i o n : . . . That n e i t h e r t h e L e g i s l a t u r e n o r t h e E x e c u tiv e b r a n c h e s , can c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a s s i g n t o t h e j u d i c i a l an y d u t i e s , b u t su ch a s a r e p r o p e r l v j u d i c i a l , and t o be p erfo rm ed i n a j u d i c i a l m anner. ® A n n o ta tio n s t o H ay b u rn t s Case {U .S.) i n 1 Law E d. 4 3 7 : (2 B a l l . 4 1 1 ). 9

* 438' I b i d . , p . 437. p

160 T h is c o n t r o v e r s y , which was b ro u g h t a b o u t by t h e c i r ­ c u i t c o u r ts * r e f u s a l t o p e rfo rm n o n - j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n s in c o n n e c tio n w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e p e n s io n law , was c a r r i e d t o t h e Supreme C ourt o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s in Hayb u r n r s Case

11

i n w hich t h e A t to r n e y G e n e ra l o f t h e U n ite d

S t a t e s , Edmund R andolph, a p p l i e d t o t h e Supreme C ourt i n 1792 t o have i t mandamus t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r t h e d i s t r i c t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia t o compel i t t o p ro c e e d w ith t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f Wm. Hayburn,, who had a p p l i e d t o t h e c o u r t t o be p la c e d on t h e p e n s io n r o l l s o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s a s an i n v a l i d p e n s i o n ­ er*

B e fo re t h e Supreme C ourt made a d e c i s i o n i n t h e c a s e ,

C ongress p ro v id e d i n a n o t h e r way f o r t h e r e l i e f o f t h e p en ­ s i o n e r ; how ever, t h i s ca se i s im p o r ta n t b e c a u se o f t h e Supreme C o u rt* s d e c l a r a t i o n on t h e rU le -m ah in g powers o f t h e c o u rt* To q u o te from t h e case r e p o r t : The A t t o r n e y G e n e ra l h a v in g moved f o r i n f o r m a tio n r e l a t i v e t o t h e sy s te m o f p r a c t i c e by w hich t h e a t t o r n i e s and c o u n s e l l o r s o f t h i s c o u r t s h a l l r e g u l a t e th e m s e l v e s , and o f t h e p l a c e i n w hich r u l e s i n c a u se s h e r e d ep e n d in g s h a l l be o b t a i n e d , t h e C h ie f J u s t i c e , a t a s u b s e q u e n t d ay , s t a t e d t h a t The C ourt c o n s i d e r s t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e c o u r t s o f K in g ’ s Bench and C hancery i n E ng lan d , a s a f f o r d i n g o u t l i n e s ^ o u tlin e s ) f o r t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h i s c o u r t ; and t h a t t h e y w i l l , from tim e t o t i m e , mahe such a l t e r ­ a t i o n s t h e r e i n , a s c ir c u m s ta n c e s may r e n d e r n e c e s s a r y . 3 . 2 ^ 12

Hayburn*s C ase, 2 B a l l . I b id ., p. 437.

( u . S.} 409; 1 Law Ed. 456 .

161 At t h e tim e o f t h i s d e c l a r a t i o n by t h e Supreme C o u rt, t h e p ro c e d u re in E ngland was c o n t r o l l e d by r u l e s e n u n c ia te d by th e c o u r t s ; and s i n c e t h e E n g li s h p ro c e d u re se rv e d a s t h e o u t l i n e f o r ou r c o u r ts a t t h a t t i m e , t h e f a c t was e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t p ro c e d u re u n d e r c o u rt-m a d e r u l e s , and n o t r u l e s e n a c te d b y any l e g i s l a t i v e body,, c o n t r o l l e d . A lth o u g h h i s t o r i c a l e v id e n c e and l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s e s t a b l i s h t h e f a c t t h a t t h e ru le m a k in g power was i n h e r e n t l y i n t h e c o u r t and t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h as u su rp e d t h i s J u d i ­ c i a l power (w hich t h e c o u r t f i r s t s u r r e n d e r e d i n 1801, a s 15 was p o i n t e d o u t e a r l i e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r }, and i f we assume t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e now h a s t h e r i g h t t o make r u l e s f o r t h e c o u r t s b e c a u s e o f i t s c o n tin u e d f u n c t i o n i n t h a t r e s p e c t f o r n e a r l y a c e n t u r y , i t s t i l l does n o t f o l l o w t h a t such a c t i o n i s an e x c l u s i v e l y l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c t i o n w hich t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ca n n o t d e l e g a t e t o t h e c o u r t s .

Kot a l l a c t s p erfo rm ed by a

le g is la tu r e are s t r i c t l y l e g is la tiv e in c h a ra c te r,

That t h e

l e g i s l a t i v e b ra n c h o f t h e governm ent was n o t com pelled t o make t h e r u l e s o f c o u r t p r o c e d u r e , and t h a t i t co u ld d e l e ­ g a t e t h e power t o t h e c o u r t i f i t chose t o do s o , was e s t a b l i s h e d m t h e case o f Wayman v . S o u th a rd , 14 i n 1825, i n w hich S u p r a , p p . 1 4 7 -4 8 . ^•W ayman v . S o u t h a r d , 10 Wheat. (U .S .) 1 -5 0 ; E d. 2 5 5 -6 4 , ( F e b ru a ry Term, 1825)

6

Law

162 C h ie f J u s t i c e M a r s h a ll handed, down t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e c o u rt* C lo s e ly r e l a t e d t o t h e case o f Wayman v . S o u th a rd was t h e 15 c a s e o f U n ite d S t a t e s v . H a ls te d * Both c a s e s were arg u ed by t h e same c o u n s e l and in v o lv e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same i s ­ su es*

I n t h e l a t t e r c a s e , A s s o c i a t e J u s t i c e Thompson d e l i v ­

ered th e c o p in io n of th e c o u r t.

I n commenting on t h e pow ers

o f t h e c o u r t t o make r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re and p r a c t i c e * he sa id : I t i s s a i d how ever, t h a t t h i s i s t h e e x e r c i s e o f l e g i s l a t i v e power, w hich co u ld n o t be d e l e g a te d b y C ongress t o t h e c o u r t s o f J u s t i c e * But t h i s o b j e c t i o n c a n n o t be s u s t a i n e d . There i s no doubt t h a t C ongress m ight have l e g i s l a t e d more s p e c i f i - c a l l y on t h e su b ­ j e c t , and d e c la r e d what p r o p e r t y s h o u ld be s u b j e c t t o e x e c u t io n s from t h e c o u r t s o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s * But i t does n o t f o l l o w , t h a t b e c a u s e C ongress m ight have done t h i s , t h e y n e c e s s a r i l y must do i t and canno t commit t h e power t o t h e c o u r t s o f J u s t i c e * C ongress m ight r e g u l a t e t h e whole p r a c t i c e o f t h e c o u r t s , i f it. was deemed e x p e d ie n t so t o do; b u t t h i s power i s v e s t e d In t h e c o u r t s ; and i t n e v e r h as o c c u rre d t o anyone t h a t I t was a d e l e g a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e pow er. In t h e l i g h t o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l p r e c e d e n t s and i n view o f t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e Supreme C ourt o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s , I t f o llo w s t h a t t h e power t o make r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re i s an I n h e r e n t power o f t h e c o u r t , t h a t in 1801 t h e Supreme C o u rt* s a c q u ie s c e n c e I n a n Act of C ongress a b o l i s h i n g t h r e e te rm s o f

15

6

Bank o f U n ite d S t a t e s v . H a ls te d , 10 ? /h e a t. 5 1 -6 1 ; Law Ed* 2 64 -6 7, (F e b ru a ry Term, 1825} 16

I b id * , p . 267

163 c o u r t amounted t o a s u r r e n d e r o f t h i s i n h e r e n t power, t h a t t h e s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s , b e g in n in g w ith Mew York i n 1848, e x t e n s i v e l y e x e r c i s e d ru le - m a k in g powers w ith o u t c h a lle n g e and t h a t , w h e r e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e now d e l e g a t e s t h e ru le - m a k in g power t o t h e c o u r t , a s h as b ee n done b y C ongress and b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o f A riz o n a , such l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i s v a l i d f o r two re a s o n s : f i r s t , because under th e th e o ry of h i s t o r i c a l p r e c ­ e d e n t t h e c o u r t n e v e r h as b een w ith o u t t h e ru le - m a k in g power and t h e r e f o r e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e * s a c t m e re ly amounts t o s u r ­ r e n d e r i n g i t s u n c h a lle n g e d p r e te n d e d c la im s t o t h a t power; and sec o n d , b e c a u s e , u n d e r t h e a ssu m p tio n t h a t t h e l e g i s l a ­ t u r e h as r i g h t f u l l y b een in p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e ru le - m a k in g pow er, i t may d e l e g a t e t h a t power t o t h e c o u r t i f i t chooses so t o do s i n c e t h e making o f r u l e s o f c o u r t p ro c e d u re i s p r o p e r l y a j u d i c i a l and n o t a l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c t i o n .

CHAPTER IX CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION TESTING THE RULE-MAKING POWER IN THE COURTS The S t a t e o f W ashington, b e in g one o f t h e f i r s t t o u n d e r ta k e t h e e x p e rim e n t o f t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e r u le - m a k in g pow ers from t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e c o u r t , a s d i s c u s s e d In c h a p te r seven,

1

l i k e w i s e d id t h e ? p lo n e e r in g In e s t a b l i s h i n g

t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e la w . The t e s t was made i n t h e c a se o f S t a t e o f W ashington ex r e l . Foster-Wyman Lumber Company v . t h e S u p e r i o r C ourt o f King C ounty,

2

in w hich c a se two i n d i v i d u a l s , who had r e f u s e d

t o obey a r u l e o f c o u r t i n a p e n d in g c a s e , a p p l i e d t o t h e Supreme C ourt f o r a w r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n t o p r e v e n t t h e S u p e r i o r C ourt o f King County from h o ld in g them i n contem pt f o r t h e i r r e f u s a l t o a b id e by t h e p ro c e d u re u n d e r t h e c o u r t made r u l e w hich was d i f f e r e n t from t h e p ro c e d u re u n d e r t h e co d e . By an Act o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e o f 19£5, t h e e n t i r e r u l e 3 making power was v e s t e d in t h e Supreme Court o f t h e S t a t e . 1

S u p r a , p p . 1 4 0 -4 1 .

2 S t a t e o f W ashington ex r e l . Foster-Wyman Lumber Company v . The S u p e r i o r C ourt o f King County, 148 Wash. 1; 267 P . 770, (May, 1928) 3

S u p ra , p . 1 4 1 .

165

S e c t i o n two of* t h e a c t p r o v id e d t h a t t h e r u l e s o f c o u r t p ro m u lg a te d b y t h e Supreme C ourt s h o u ld s u p e rs e d e and a b r o ­ g a t e a l l law s o r o t h e r r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re in c o n f l i c t t h e r e ­ w ith *

On J a n u a r y 14, 1987, p u r s u a n t t o t h e a u t h o r i t y v e s t ­

ed i n i t b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , t h e Supreme C ourt p ro m u lg a te d , i

among o t h e r r u l e s , t h e f o l lo w i n g R ule T i l l , s u b d . 5 : 1 . The t e s t i m o n y o f a w i t n e s s may be t a k e n by depo­ s i t i o n , t o be r e a d i n e v id e n c e in an a c t i o n , s u i t o r p r o c e e d in g commenced and p e n d in g i n any c o u r t i n t h i s s t a t e , in th e fo llo w in g c a s e s : * * * 5. Wien t h e w itn e s s (a ) a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n or (b) a n o f f i c e r , a g e n t , p a r t n e r , s t o c k h o l d e r o r employee of a p a rty or * * * I n an a c t i o n b ro u g h t by t h e a s s i g n e e s of t h e McCor­ mack Lumber Company a g a i n s t t h e Foster-w ym an Lumber Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , F o s t e r , who was a c o - d e fe n d a n t i n t h e a c t i o n , and fJyman, who was a s t o c k h o l d e r and o f f i c e r o f t h e d e fe n d a n t c o r p o r a t i o n , r e f u s e d t o g iv e t h e i r d e p o s i t i o n s a s r e q u i r e d b y R ule YXXI, su b d . 5 f

B oth o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , F o s t e r and

V^yman, came w i t h i n t h e c l a s s o f p a r t i e s d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e ru le .

The S u p e r i o r C ourt o f K ing County announced i t s i n ­

t e n t i o n o f h o ld in g them i n contem pt i f t h e y p e r s i s t e d in t h e i r r e f u s a l t o t e s t i f y a s p ro v id e d f o r in t h e r u l e , b u t t h e c o u r t d e f e r r e d t h e q u e s t i o n o f contem pt t o a l l o w t h e

Quoted i n t h e o p in io n i n S t a t e o f W ashington ex r e l * Foster-W yman Lumber Company v . The S u p e r i o r C ourt o f King C ounty, £ £ . c i t *, 771.

166

r e l a t o r s , F o s t e r and Wyman, t o p r e s e n t argum ents t o t h e Supreme C ourt o f t h e S t a t e on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e r u le in v o lv e d * Many b r i e f s were f i l e d on b o t h s i d e s o f t h e q u e s t i o n , and t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e a c t was a t t a c h e d from a l l a n g l e s ; how ever, t h e Supreme C ourt re d u ced t h e q u e s t i o n s o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y to th re e * The f i r s t q u e s t i o n was w h e th e r t h e r u le - m a k in g power was an e x c l u s i v e l y l e g i s l a t i v e powere and t h e r e f o r e u n d e r t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f pow ers o f government i n t o t h e t h r e e b r a n c h e s — e x e c u t i v e , l e g i s l a t i v e , and j u d i c i a l - - c o u l d n o t be d e l e g a t e d by t h e c l e g l s l a t u r e t o a n o t h e r b ra n c h o f t h e governm ent *

I t i s an e le m e n ta r y p r i n c i p l e o f law t h a t t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e ca n n o t d e l e g a t e an e x c l u s i v e l y l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c tio n * The r e l a t o r s con tend ed t h a t from t h e b e g in n in g o f s t a t e h o o d i t alw ay s had b een t h e re c o g n iz e d p o l i c y o f t h e s t a t e t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s h o u ld p r e s c r i b e p ro c e d u re and p r a c t i c e i n t h e c o u r ts *

The Supreme C ourt h e ld i n t h e f i r s t

i n s t a n c e t h a t even th o u g h t h e b l e g i s l a t u r e had f u n c ti o n e d a s t h e r u le - m a k in g a u t h o r i t y from t h e b e g in n in g o f s t a t e h o o d t h a t c irc u m s ta n c e was n o t a c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r in d e te r m in in g w h e th e r t h i s was an e x c l u s i v e l y l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c t i o n .

T h is

l e d i n t o a n o t h e r p h ase o f t h e same q u e s t i o n —t h a t i s , w h e th e r lo n g a c q u ie s c e n c e by t h e c o u r t s o f t h e s t a t e in l e g i s l a t i v e

167

c o n t r o l o f c o u r t p ro c e d u re and p r a c t i c e was s u f f i c i e n t t o r e q u i r e a h o l d i n g t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e body, i f i t d e s i r e d , sh o u ld c o n tin u e t h a t s u p e r v i s i o n *

I n d e c id i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n ,

t h e c o u r t h e l d i n s u b s t a n c e , i t does n o t f o l l o w t h a t b e c a u se t h e l e g i s l a t u r e may p r e s c r i b e t h e r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e , i t must do so and ca n n o t commit t h e power t o t h e c o u r t s i f i t so chooses.

The c o u r t s t a t e d :

There a r e v e r y cog en t r e a s o n s why t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s n o t com pelled t o l e g i s l a t e i n i n t r i c a t e d e t a i l upon a l l s u b j e c t s , t h e c h i e f o f w hich may v e r y p r o p e r l y be s a i d t o be t h e i n a b i l i t y o f a l e g i s l a t i v e body t o p e r fo rm su c h m in ute f u n c t i o n s , owing t o s h o r t b i e n n i a l s e s s i o n s w ith l a c k of tim e t o s tu d y and i n v e s t i g a t e p ro b le m s . W ith c o u r t p r o c e d u r e and p r a c t i c e t h i s i s e sp e c ia lly tru e . . . . . , . The l e g i s l a t u r e r e c o g n iz e d t h a t r u l e s o f c o u r t t o prom ote J u s t i c e sh o u ld be in t h e hands o f t h a t d ep a rtm e n t o f government w h ic h . . . . . * i s . . . . . . q u a l i f i e d , th r o u g h a c t u a l e x p e r i e n c e , t o f o r m u la te s a l u t a r y r u l e s , when i t t i t l e d t h e l e g i s l a t i v e e n a c tm e n t: *An Act t o prom ote t h e sp ee d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n on t h e m e r i t s and a u t h o r i z i n g t h e supreme c o u r t t o make r u l e s r e l a t i n g t o p l e a d i n g , p ro c e d u re and p r a c t i c e i n t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e , The seco ng c h a lle n g e t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e a c t r a i s e d b y t h e r e l a t o r s was t h a t u n d e r t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f W ashington o n ly t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t Judges c o u ld make r u l e s f o r t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t and t h a t i t was c o n t r a r y t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n f o r t h e supreme c o u r t t o make r u le s fo r th e su p e rio r c o u rts .

5

I b i d . , p . 772

I n s u p p o rt o f t h e i r c o n te n -

168

t i o n , t h e y c i t e d S e c t i o n 24 o f A r t i c l e IT o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f Y /ashington w hich i s a s f o l l o w s : RULES FOR SUPERIOR COURTS:- The Judges o f t h e sup e r i o r c o u r t s s h a l l , from tim e t o t i m e , e s t a b l i s h r u l e s f o r t h e governm ent o f t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r ts * [ ^ ita lic s not in th e o rig in a l] The Supreme C ourt p o i n t e d out t h a t i f t h i s s e c t i o n were i n t e r p r e t e d a s r e l a t o r s co ntended i t sh o u ld b e — t h a t i t , i s an e x c l u s i v e g r a n t o f power t o t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t s a l o n e —t h e n i t would p r o h i b i t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a s w e l l a s t h e Supreme Court from p r e s c r i b i n g t h e r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re and p r a c t i c e in t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t s ; i n o t h e r w ords, t h a t r e l a t o r s r argum ent d e ­ f e a t e d t h e i r own c a s e .

I n d e c id i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n , t h e c o u r t

p o i n t e d ou t t h a t nowhere i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n was t h e r e any p r o v i s i o n t h a t t h e supreme c o u r t s h a l l have power t o make r u l e s f o r i t s own governm ent and t h a t i t co u ld h a r d l y be con­ te n d e d t h a t t h e f r a m e r s o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n in t e n d e d t o g r a n t t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t s pow er t o make r u l e s f o r th e m s e lv e s and t o deny t h e same power t o t h e supreme c o u r t .

Through a lo n g p r o ­

c e s s o f r e a s o n in g i n v o l v i n g t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e i n t e n ­ t i o n o f t h e fra m e rs o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e c o u r t h e ld t h a t S e c t i o n 24 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n was n o t a g r a n t o f power t o make b ro a d and g e n e r a l r u l e s , b u t m e re ly a l i m i t a t i o n on t h e s u p e rio r c o u rts a l l over th e s t a t e " r e q u irin g t h a t th e cus-

6

I b id *, P . 775*

169

tern ary r u l e s h a v in g t o do w i t h t h e m in u tie o f c o u r t g o v e rn ­ ment s h o u ld be u n ifo rm i n c h a r a c t e r , ” e x p l a i n i n g t h a t i t would be n e c e s s a r y wso t h a t a t t o r n e y and c l i e n t sh o u ld n o t be hampered b y f i n d i n g p e t t y r u l e s in each c o u r t d i f f e r i n g a c ­ c o r d in g t o t h e view s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r judge who p r e s i d e d o v er 7 t h e t r i b u n a l ; and t h a t s i n c e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e had p r e v i o u s l y e x e r c i s e d t h e power o f m aking r u l e s f o r a l l c o u r t s , i t c o u ld d e l e g a t e t h e power t o t h e Supreme C ourt t o make r u l e s f o r th e su p e rio r c o u rts . The t h i r d c h a lle n g e t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e Act r a i s e d b y t h e r e l a t o r s was t h a t t h e a c t was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b e c a u s e t h e s t a t u t e was made t o t a k e e f f e c t upon t h e h a p p e n in g o f a s u b s e q u e n t ev e n t ( t h e making o f t h e r u l e s by t h e e o u r t ) w hich r e l a t o r s co ntended was such a c o n tin g e n c y a s t o d e s t r o y t h e e f f e c t o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , and f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e t a k i n g o f d e p o s i t i o n s was n o t i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f p ro c e d u re and p r a c ­ t i c e b u t in v ad ed t h e s u b s t a n t i v e law .

The Supreme C ourt h e ld

t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y o f a s t a t u t e i s n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e f a c t i t t a k e s e f f e c t o n ly a f t e r t h e h ap p e n in g o f a s u b s e q u e n t e v e n t and t h a t t h e t a k i n g o f d e p o s i t i o n s i s an a c t i n t h e p r o c e d u r e and p r a c t i c e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t s . The Supreme C ourt co n c lu d e d t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a c t

7 S t a t e of W ashington ex r e l . Foster-Wyman Lumber Company v . The S u p e r i o r C ourt fsSr King County, l o c . c l t .

170

was c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and t h a t t h e r u l e o f c o u r t i n q u e s t i o n was e f f e c t i v e and t h e r e f o r e i t d e n ie d t h e p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w rit of p ro h ib itio n * The S t a t e o f W ashington h o ld s t h e d i s t i n c t i o n n o t o n ly o f h a v in g had t h e f i r s t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e s t case o f t h i s k in d b u t a l s o o f h a v in g p r o b a b ly more t e s t c a s e s t h a n any o t h e r sta te .

The second t e s t case was J u s t a l i t t l e more th a n one

year a f t e r th e f i r s t .

U n lik e t h e f i r s t t e s t c a se w hich i n ­

v o lv e d t h e r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o c e d u r e , t h e second t e s t case in v o lv e d t h e r u l e s o f c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r e a s a d o p te d by t h e C ourt p u r s u a n t t o t h e a u t h o r i t y v e s t e d i n i t by t h e a c t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1925. P av e lic h et a l .

8

T h is was t h e ca se o f S t a t e v .

P r i o r t o t h e a d o p tio n o f t h e r u l e s by t h e

C o u rt, a s t a t e s t a t u t e made i t m an d ato ry upon t h e Judge t o i n s t r u c t t h e J u ry t h a t no i n f e r e n c e o o f g u i l t sh o u ld a r i s e a g a i n s t an a c c u se d from h i s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y i n h i s own b e h a lf. 9 The r u l e s o f c o u r t a b r o g a te d t h i s s t a t u t o r y man­ d a te .^

The Supreme C ou rt h e l d t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e l e g i s l a ­

0

t u r e can n o t d e l e g a t e t o c o u r t s , and c o u r t s ca n n o t assume power t o a b r o g a te s u b s t a n t i v e law , t h e a b r o g a t i o n o f t h e 8 S t a t e v . P a v e l i c h e t a l . 153 Wash. 379; 279 P . 1102, (A ugu st, 1929) 9 10

S e c t i o n 2148 Hem. Comp. S t a t . ,

( S t a t e o f W ashington)

Rule 9 o f Supreme C o u rt, subd. 1, 140 Wash. x i i .

171

s t a t u t e I n q u e s t i o n was n o t an i n v a s i o n o f t h e r e a lm o f s u b s t a n t i v e law , b u t t o t h e c o n t r a r y , was a v a l i d e x e r c i s e o f t h e r u le - m a k in g pow er.

The C o u rt, how ever, d id s t a t e

t h a t t h e a c c u s e d h as t h e r i g h t t o r e q u e s t t h a t s u c h an i n ­ s t r u c t i o n be g iv e n t o t h e J u ry an d , i f r e q u e s t e d , t h e c o u rt must g iv e i t ; b u t i t i s n o t m an d ato ry upon t h e c o u r t w ith o u t a re q u e st.

In t h i s c a s e , th e co u rt a ls o h eld t h a t r u l e s o f

e v id e n c e c o n s t i t u t e s u b s t a n t i v e law and ca n n o t be governed by r u l e s of c o u r t• In l e s s th a n a y ear l a t e r , a t h i r d t e s t case a ro s e , S t a t e v . W illia m s e t a l l . ’*"*'

I t In v o lv e d t h e same q u e s t i o n s

a s t h e ca se o f S t a t e v . P a v e l i c h — t h a t I s , w h e th e r t h e c o u r t was com pelled t o I n s t r u c t t h e J u ry w ith o u t h a v in g r e c e i v e d a r e q u e s t from t h e a c c u se d and t h a t no i n f e r e n c e o f g u i l t s h o u ld a r i s e from h i s f a i l u r e t o t e s t i f y i n h i s own b e h a l f . The C ourt r e a f f i r m e d t h e p o s i t i o n t a k e n in t h e p r e c e d i n g c a s e . About two y e a r s l a t e r , a f o u r t h t e s t c a se c h a lle n g e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e law , L a rso n v . Union In v e stm e n t Company.

12

That was a c i v i l c a s e .

A f t e r t h e a c t i o n had been

i n s t i t u t e d , a J o i n t p a r t y - p l a i n t i f f was a d m itte d t o t h e case p u r s u a n t t o t h e new c o u r t r u l e s w ith o u t t h e s e r v i n g o f an

S t a t e v . W illia m s e t a l . 156 Wash. (March, 1930}. 12

6

; 286 P . 65,

L a rs o n v . Union In v e s tm e n t Company, 168 Wash. 5; 10 P . (2d) 557, ( A p r i l , 1 9 3 2 ].

172

amended, c o m p la in t and o r i g i n a l summons on t h e d e f e n d a n t. The d e fe n d a n t co ntended t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e J o i n t p a r t y p l a i n t i f f t o t h e a c t i o n o p e r a te d a s a s u b s t i t u t i o n o f an e n t i r e l y new p l a i n t i f f t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l one and t h a t , In t h e a b se n c e o f a r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e summons and c o m p la in t, a s i n an o r i g i n a l a c t i o n , t h e c o u r t had no J u r i s d i c t i o n t o p r o c e e d .

The C ourt h e l d t h a t t h e r e

had b e e n f u l l com pliance w i t h r u l e s 2 and 3 o f t h e r u l e s o f p l e a d i n g , p r o c e d u r e , and p r a c t i c e a d o p te d b y t h e C ourt on J a n u a ry 14, 1927, and t h a t t h o s e r u l e s were ad o p ted p u r s u a n t t o t h e a u t h o r i t y v e s te d I n t h e c o u r t b y t h e a c t o f t h e l e g i s ­ l a t u r e I n 1925 and t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h o s e r u l e s were n o t u n co n­ s titu tio n a l.

in • I n November, 1 9 3 3 ,/ t h e c a se o f White v . M i l l i o n ,

s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same a t t a c k was made on t h e law a s i n t h e f i r s t e a s e , S t a t e o f W ashington ex r e l . Foster-fJym an Lumber 14 Co. v . The S u p e r i o r C ourt f o r Kong C o u n ty ,th a t is , th a t t h e law was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b e c a u s e t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n does n o t , in e x p r e s s te r m s , c o n f e r upon t h e Supreme C ourt t h e power o f m aking su c h r u l e s and b e c a u se t h e a c t u n d e r ta k e s t o d e l e g a t e t o t h e J u d i c i a r y a power t h a t i s l e g i s l a t i v e i n c h a ra c te r.

The C ourt c i t e d t h e p r e v io u s e a s e s i n w hich t h e

13

W hite v . M i l l i o n , 175 Wash. 189; 27 P (2d) 320, (November, 1 9 3 3 ). ^

Supra, pp. 1 5 7 -6 5 .

175

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e a c t had h een u p h e ld and s t a t e d : "Under t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s , , we h o ld t h a t t h e r u l e h e r e i n 15 q u e s t i o n h as t h e s a n c t i o n o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n * " The S t a t e o f ?fash in g to n u n d o u b te d ly h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a p r e c e d e n t by t h e s e f i v e c a s e s f o r u p h o ld in g t h e c o n s t i ­ t u t i o n a l i t y o f s i m i l a r s t a t u t e s in o t h e r s t a t e s . W iscon sin e n a c t e d a s i m i l a r law i n 1929, e x c e p t t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e made a s p e c i f i c r e s e r v a t i o n t o r e - e n t e r t h e ru le - m a k in g a c t i v i t y s h o u ld i t choose t o do s o .

The

W isco n sin Act p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : n . . . n o t h i n g i n t h i s s e c ­ t i o n s h a l l a b r id g e t h e r i g h t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o e n a c t , m o d ify o r r e p e a l s t a t u t e s o r r u l e s r e l a t i n g t o p l e a d i n g , p r a c t i c e o r p r o c e d u r e . " 16 The Supreme C ourt o f W isconsin h e l d t h a t t h i s r e s e r v a t i o n i n t h e a c t d id n o t r e n d e r i t u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and t h a t t h e r e i s no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o b j e c ­ t i o n t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e f s d e l e g a t i o n o f power ( t o r e g u l a t e J u d ic ia l procedure) t o th e c o u r ts .

S p eak in g o f t h e c o n te n ­

tio n th a t th e act is a d e le g a tio n of e x c lu s iv e ly l e g i s l a t i v e power t o t h e c o u r t , t h e C ourt s a i d : I t i s n o t o n ly a m a t t e r o f some d i f f i c u l t y t o s e t p r e c i s e l y th e b o rd e r l i n e s of l e g i s l a t i v e , e x e c u tiv e , and J u d i c i a l p ow ers, b u t i t a l s o seems q u i t e c l e a r t h a t , e i t h e r b y b u stam , o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l m and ate, o r t h e

W hite v . M i l l i o n , l o c « c i t . "I A

Quoted i n I n r e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f S e c . 2 5 1 .1 8 , W isco n sin S t a t u t e s , 20A W is. 501; 236 N. W. 717, (May, 1 9 3 1 ).

174

i n h e r e n t n e c e s s i t i e s of* t h e s i t u a t i o n , t h e t h r e e b ra n c h e s o f governm ent have h e r e t o f o r e e x e r c i s e d o t h e r powers t h a n t h o s e w h ich , u n d e r t h e d o c t r i n e o f s e p a r a t i o n o f p o w e rs, b e lo n g p e c u l i a r l y and e x c l u s i v e l y t o th em . T h is W isco n sin c a se came b e f o r e t h e Supreme C ourt o f t h a t S t a t e i n an o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d in g t o t e s t t h e c o n s t i t u ­ t i o n a l i t y o f S e c t i o n 251*18 a s amended b y C h a p te r 4 0 4 , Laws o f 1989. The c a se o f S t a t e v . Roy,

18

New M exico, d e c id e d i n

A u g u st, 1936, p r o b a b ly i s o f g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e t o A riz o n a th a n th e o th e r cases because of th e s i m i l a r i t y o f th e c o n s ti­ t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f pow ers i n t h e s e two s t a t e s .

A r t i c l e 3 , S e c t i o n 1 o f t h e New Mexico

C o n s t i t u t i o n i s t h e same a s A r t i c l e I I I o f t h e A riz o n a Con­ s t i t u t i o n in su b sta n c e .

F u rth e rm o re , t h e New Mexico law 19 w hich t r a n s f e r r e d t h e r u le - m a k in g power t o t h e c o u r t is s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same a s t h e law e n a c te d by t h e A riz o n a L e g i s l a t u r e i n so f a r a s r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re a r e c o n c e r n e d . SO P u r s u a n t t o t h e Act o f 1933, t h e New Mexico Supreme 17 In r e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f S e c . 8 5 1 .1 8 , W isco n sin S ta tu te s, lo c . c i t . I Q

S t a t e v . Roy, 40 Hew Mex. R ep. 3 9 ?; 60 P . (Ed) 646, (A u g u st, 1 9 3 6 ). 19 New Mexico, Laws o f 1933, C h a p te r 84, S e c t i o n s 1 and S. 20

Supra, p p . 1 3 8 -3 9 .

175

C o u rt, on J u l y 1 , 1934, p ro m u lg a te d r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e . These In c lu d e d r u l e s f o r c r i m i n a l p ro c e d u re *

Under r u l e

35-446 i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o ch a rg e t h a t nA. B. murdered. C. P*w i n a ho m icid e c a s e , and r u l e 35-414 makes i t u n n e c e s s a r y t o a l l e g e i n t h e in d ic tm e n t o r in f o r m a t i o n t h e means b y w hich t h e m urder was co m m itted; f u r t h e r m o r e , r u l e 35-4417 makes i t u n n ecessary to a lle g e c rim in a l i n t e n t .

SI

These r u l e s make i t

a lm o s t im p o s s ib le f o r t h e d e fe n d a n t t o have an i n d ic tm e n t o r i n f o r m a t i o n quashed b e c a u s e o f t e c h n i c a l d e f e c t s .

The con­

s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f t h e a c c u se d a r e p r o t e c t e d b y a p r o v i ­ s i o n t h a t e i t h e r a t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e a c c u s e d , o r on t h e c o u r t r s own i n i t i a t i v e , t h e c o u n ty a t t o r n e y s h a l l f u r n i s h a b i l l o f p a r t i c u l a r s t o in fo rm t h e a c c u se d more f u l l y o f t h e o f f e n s e he i s ch arg ed w i t h .

Thus t h e d e fe n d a n t h as a l l t h e

fo rm e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n s b u t i s n o t a f f o r d e d t h e lo o p h o le o f e s c a p e by h a v in g t h e c o u r t g r a n t a m otion t o q u ash a d e f e c t i v e i n d ic tm e n t o r i n f o r m a t i o n .

The d e f e n d a n t,

Hyman Roy, who was c o n v ic te d o f m urder and s e n te n c e d t o d e a t h , a p p e a le d on t h e g ro u n d s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o ch a rg e him w ith m urder and t h a t t h e s t a t u t e and r u l e s o f c o u r t p u r s u a n t t h e r e t o were u n c o n stitu tio n a l. The Supreme C ourt o f t h a t S t a t e h e l d t h a t t h e El

Quoted i n S t a t e v . Roy, o p . c i t . , p . 653.

176

a lle g a tio n ,

"Hyman Roy . • * d id m urder M artha H u t c h i s o n ,”

was s u f f i c i e n t u n d e r t h e new r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re and t h a t t h e r u l e s were p ro m u lg a te d u n d e r i n h e r e n t power i n t h e Supreme C ourt o f t h e S t a t e and, f u r t h e r m o r e , t h a t t h e s t a t u t e d id n o t d e l e g a t e an e x c lu s i v e l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c t i o n t o t h e c o u r ts w hich would have b een c o n t r a r y t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n .

The

C ourt a f f i r m e d t h e c o n v ic tio n * I t w i l l be n o te d t h a t t h e New Mexico Supreme C ourt to o k t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e s t a t u t e , t h e c o u r t had t h e i n h e r e n t powers t o make s u c h r u l e s ; how ever, i t a l s o h e ld t h a t t h e s t a t u t e was con­ s titu tio n a l*

The New Mexico s t a t h t e was m odeled a f t e r t h e

W isco n sin S t a t u t e . B e s id e s d i s p o s i n g of. t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s in v o l v e d , t h e C o u rt, i n i t s o p in io n , gave a l e a r n e d d i s s e r ­ t a t i o n on t h e p r o g r e s s made i n d r a f t i n g i n d i c t m e n t s and i n ­ fo rm a tio n s *

T h is i s w o rth y o f n o te*

"L et u s compare t h e

c h a r g in g p a r t o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n in t h e i n s t a n t case as f o l l o w s *Hyman Roy . . . d id m urder . . . M artha H u tc h is o n * ," s a i d t h e c o u r t , " w ith t h e in d ic tm e n t i n t h e c a se o f S t a t e v . YiFiley Freem an, 1 S p e e r s , 57, d e c id e d by t h e Supreme Court o f S o u th C a r o l i n a i n 1842 w hich i s as f o l l o w s : "That W iley Freem an, l a b o r e r , on t h e t e n t h day o f A p r i l , i n t h e y e a r o f o u r Lord one th o u s a n d e i g h t hundred and t h i r t y s e v e n , w ith f o r c e and arm s, a t L d g e f i e l d c o u r th o u s e , i n t h e d i s t r i c t and S t a t e a f o r e ­ s a i d , i n and upon one Mary Freeman, i n t h e p ea ce o f G-od and t h i s S t a t e th e n and t h e r e b e in g , f e l o n i o u s l y , w i l -

177

f u l l y , and o f h i s m a lic e a f o r e t h o u g h t , d id make an a s s a u l t , and t h a t t h e s a i d W iley Freeman, w i t h a c e r t a i n gun c a l l e d a r i f l e gun, o f t h e v a lu e o f t e n d o l l a r s , t h e n and t h e r e charged w i t h gun powder and two l e a d e n b u l l e t s , which s a i d gun he t h e s a i d W iley Freeman in b o th h i s hands t h e n and t h e r e had and h eld * a t and a g a i n s t t h e s a i d Mary Freem an, t h e n and t h e r e f e l o n ­ i o u s l y , w i l f u l l y , and o f h i s m a lic e a f o r e t h o u g h t , d id s h o o t o f f and d i s c h a r g e , and t h a t t h e s a i d W iley F r e e ­ man, w ith t h e le a d e n b u l l e t s a f o r e s a i d , by means o f s h o o t i n g o f f and d i s c h a r g i n g t h e s a i d gun so lo a d e d , t o , a t , and a g a i n s t t h e s a i d Mary Freeman, a s a f o r e s a i d , d id t h e n and t h e r e f e l o n i o u s l y , w i l f u l l y , and o f h i s m a lic e a f o r e t h o u g h t , s t r i k e , p e n e t r a t e and wound t h e s a i d Mary Freem an, i n and upon t h e l e f t s i d e o f t h e s a i d Mary Freem an, below t h e l e f t b r e a s t o f h e r t h e s a i d Mary Freeman, g i v i n g t o h e r t h e s a i d Mary Fre:eman, t h e n and t h e r e w ith t h e le a d e n b u l l e t s a f o r e s a i d , b y means o f s h o o t i n g o f f and d i s c h a r g i n g t h e s a i d gun so lo a d e d , t o , a t , and a g a i n s t t h e s a i d Mary Freeman, and b y su ch s t r i k i n g , p e n e t r a t i n g and wounding t h e s a i d Mary Freem an, a s a f o r e s a i d , one m o r t a l wound i n and upon t h e l e f t s i d e o f t h e s a i d Mary Freem an, b elo w t h e l e f t b r e a s t o f t h e s a i d Mary Freeman, o f t h e d e p th o f f o u r i n c h e s , and o f t h e w id th o f one i n c h , o f w hich s a i d m o r t a l wound t h e s a i d Mary Freeman, on and from t h e s a i d t e n t h day o f A p r i l , in t h e y e a r o f o u r Lord one th o u s a n d e i g h t hundred and t h i r t y - s e v e n , a t E d g e f i e l d c o u r th o u s e , i n t h e d i s t r i c t and S t a t e a f o r e s a i d , d id l a n g u i s h , and l a n g u i s h ­ i n g d id l i v e , on w hich s a i d e l e v e n t h s a y o f A p r i l l a s t a f o r e s a i d , a b o u t t h e h o u r o f f i v e o 'c l o c k i n t h e morn­ i n g , s h e , t h e s a i d Mary Freem an, a t E d g e f ie ld c o u r th o u s e , i n t h e d i s t r i c t and S t a t e a f o r e s a i d , o f t h e m o r t a l wound a f o r e s a i d d i e d ; and so t h e j u r o r s a f o r e s a i d , upon t h e i r o a t h s do s a y , t h a t t h e s a i d W iley Freeman, h e r , t h e s a i d Mary Freem an, i n manner and form a f o r e s a i d , f e l o n i o u s l y , w i l f u l l y , and o f h i s m a lic e a f o r e t h o u g h t , d id k i l l and m u rd e r, a g a i n s t t h e p e a c e and d i g n i t y o f t h e same S t a t e a fo re sa id * ”And t h e j u r o r s a f o r e s a i d , upon t h e i r o a th s a f o r e ­ s a i d , do f u r t h e r p r e s e n t , t h a t W iley Freem an, l a b o r e r , n o t h a v in g t h e f e a r o f G-od b e f o r e h i s e y e s , b u t b e in g moved and seduced by t h e i n s t i g a t i o n o f t h e d e v i l , on t h e t e n t h day o f A p r i l , i n t h e y e a r o f our Lord one th o u s a n d e i g h t hundred and t h i r t y - s e v e n , w i th f o r c e and arms . * . . tt ZZ S t a t e v» Roy, o p » c i t . , p p . 654-55.

178

With t h e same monotonous d e t a i l and r e p e t i t i o n and a t t h e same l e n g t h t h e in d ic tm e n t r e c i t e s t h a t "one o t h e r m o r t a l wound,, o f t h e b r e a d t h o f one in c h and d e p th o f se v e n in c h e s " was i n f l i c t e d .

One m ight s p e c u l a t e a s t o what t h e in d ic tm e n t

would be l i k e were t h e same p r o s e c u t o r t o d r a f t t h e in d ic tm e n t i n a m achine gun a s s a s s i n a t i o n su ch a s p r a c t i c e d i n p r e s e n t d ay gang w a r s .

I n commenting upon t h e i n d ic tm e n t a g a i n s t

W iley Freeman, t h e C ourt i n t h e ca se o f S t a t e v . Roy s t a t e d : In t h i s l a t t e r a n e i e n t and a r c h a i c form we f i n d d e t a i l upon d e t a i l , n e e d l e s s and u s e l e s s r e p e t i t i o n a f t e r r e p e t i t i o n , c o n c lu s i o n s w ith o u t f a c t s . A r i d i c u ­ l o u s and l a b o r i o u s w r i t t e n in s tr u m e n t h a v in g t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f a voodoo i n c a n t a t i o n t o awe t h e ac cu sed r a t h e r th a n have t h e e f f e c t o f in fo rm in g him o f t h e crim e o f w hich he i s c h a rg e d . The lo n g form f o r many y e a r s h as b e e n t h e c h e r is h e d i d o l o f t h e l e g a l i s t i c mind and t h e c u r s e and n ig h tm a re o f e v e ry member o f t h e b a r who h as had t h e d u ty a s a p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y t o p r e p a r e an i n d ic tm e n t o r i n ­ f o r m a ti o n . The form we have p r e s c r i b e d does n o t r e q u i r e t h e t e c h n i c a l c r a f tm a n s h ip o f an a r t i s t i n r h e m a tic s f o r t h e draw ing o f an i n d i c t m e n t . V a l i d i t y i s n o t s a c r i ­ f i c e d t o p e r f e c t i o n o f form , n o r i s j u s t i c e d e la y e d o r d e f e a t e d by l e g a l i s t i c i n s i s t e n c e u p o n ^ s ta te m e n t o f d e t a i l s w h ich s e r v e no u s e f u l p u r p o s e . In commenting i n g e n e r a l on t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n c r i m i n a l p ro c e d u re u n d e r t h e fo rm e r lo n g form o f in d ic tm e n t and i n ­ f o r m a tio n , and how i t d e f e a t e d r a t h e r th a n a id e d h u s t i c e , how i t r e s u l t e d i n many c a s e s b e in g d is m is s e d on t e c h n i c a l i t i e s

23

I b i d . , pp. 6 5 5-56.

179

i n s t e a d o f g o in g t o t r i a l on t h e i r m e r i t s , t h e C ourt made th e se f u r th e r o b se rv a tio n s; T here was a tim e i n our J u r i s p r u d e n c e when i t r e q u i r e d a m a s te r i n t h e a r t o f J u g g l i n g words t o fram e an in d ic tm e n t or in fo rm a tio n * I f t h e fo llo w ^ in g words and p h r a s e s , t o w i t , fa f o r e s a i d , * fd id th e n and t h e r e , * and *him t h e s a id * d id n o t f a l l i n t o t h e i r p r o p e r p l a c e s i n t h e in d i c t m e n t o r I n f o r ­ m a tio n i n s u f f i c i e n t q u a n t i t y , t h e a c c u s a t i o n was q u ash e d , t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y dubbed a s in c o m p e te n t, and t h e a c c u s e d f r e e d , t o t h e dism ay o f t h e p u b l i c and t h e c h a­ g r i n and m o r t i f i c a t i o n o f re aso n * In t h e f i v e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e s t e a s e s i n t h e S t a t e o f W ashington, p r a c t i c a l l y e v e ry p o s s i b l e a t t a c k was r e s o r t e d t o i n an a tte m p t t o have t h e law w hich gave t h e r u le - m a k in g power t o t h e c o u r t d e c l a r e d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

The d e c i s i o n s

o f t h e l e a r n e d c o u r t seem t o have e s t a b l i s h e d t h e p r e c e d e n t s n e c e ss a ry f o r firm ly e s ta b lis h in g th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h i s ty p e o f la w .

W isco n sin and Hew Mexico have r e a f f i r m e d

W a s h in g to n 's p o s i t i o n .

There i s l i t t l e

doubt t h a t a l l s t a t e s

w i l l f o l l o w t h i s p r e c e d e n t when, and i f , t h e i r s i m i l a r law i s a t t a c k e d on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g ro u n d s .

84

I b i d : . , p . 654

CHAPTER X SHOULD THE TRIAL COURT HAVE PLENARY POWER TO RELAX OR SUSPEND RULES? i W ill t h e new r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e now i n e f f e c t i n b o t h t h e F e d e r a l c o u r t s and A riz o n a *s S t a t e c o u r t s a s s u r e e v e r y A riz o n a l i t i g a n t t h a t h i s c a s e w i l l he d e c id e d upon i t s m eri i t s r a t h e r t h a n on t e c h n i c a l i t i e s o f p ro c e d u re r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e th e r t h e ca se i s i n t h e F e d e r a l o r t h e S t a t e C o u rt?

To

assume t h a t i t w i l l r e q u i r e s t h e a c c e p ta n c e o f tw o p re m is e s t h a t a r e u n t e n a b l e ; f i r s t , t h a t no s i t u a t i o n w i l l a r i s e i n w hich t h e m e r i t s o f t h e e a se w i l l ru n c o n t r a r y t o t h e e s t a b ­ l i s h e d r u l e s ; and s e c o n d , t h a t t h e r e s p e c t i v e supreme c o u r t s w i l l have a n t i c i p a t e d e v e ry s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r i n g a r u l e b e f o r e i t a c tu a lly a r is e s . I t i s t o o fu n d a m e n ta l t o adm it o f argum ent t h a t g e n e r­ a l r u l e s a r e f r a u g h t w ith e x c e p t io n s and t h a t i t i s humanly im p o s s ib l e t o a n t i c i p a t e e v e ry s i t u a t i o n t h a t w i l l a r i s e . W i l l t h e c a s e s i n w h ich new s i t u a t i o n s a r i s e — c a s e s i n w hich i t may a p p e a r t o t h e t r i a l - c o u r t Judge t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s w i l l work an i n j u s t i c e —w i l l su c h c a s e s have t o s e r v e a s e x p e rim e n ts f o r p e r f e c t i n g t h e r u l e s f o r fu tu re cases?

W i l l s u c h ^ l a b o r a t o r y ” e x p e rim e n ts be a t t h e

ex p e n se o f t h e l i t i g a n t s ?

I t i s ob v io u s t h a t when a new s i t u ­

a t i o n a r i s e s t h e D i s t r i c t o r t h e S u p e r i o r C ourt Judge w i l l n o t

181

be a b l e t o su b m it t h e p ro b lem t o t h e Supreme C ourt and g e t a r u l i n g on i t i n tim e t o a p p l y t o t h e c a s e i n p r o g r e s s .

It

would be i m p o s s ib le f o r t h e J u s t i c e s o f t h e Supreme C ourt o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s o r of t h e S t a t e o f A riz o n a t o convene and a d o p t a new r u l e , o r amend an e x i s t i n g r u l e o f p r o c e d u r e , t o be a p p l i e d t o a e a s e in p r o g r e s s u n l e s s i t were r e c e s s e d o r c o n tin u e d f o r an u n r e a s o n a b le l e n g t h o f t i m e .

I n c a s e s b e in g

t r i e d b e f o r e a j u r y i t would b e s t i l l more im p o s s ib le b e c a u s e e a c h I n d i v i d u a l j u r o r must h e a r a l l o f t h e ea se and I t would be t o o d i f f i c u l t t o heep t h e p a n e l i n t a c t .

Then, t o o , t h e

p r o l o n g i n g o f a t r i a l would be e x p e n s iv e t o th e s t a t e b e ca u se o f t h e l o s t m otion i n t h e c o u r t m ach in ery t h a t would r e s u l t , and e x p e n s iv e t o t h e l i t i g a n t s b e c a u s e o f I n c r e a s e d w i t n e s s and j u r y f e e s and p r o b a b ly a t t o r n e y s * f e e s , a l s o ! The s o l u t i o n seems t o l i e i n t h e a d o p tio n o f a r u l e g i v i n g t h e t r i a l - c o u r t judge p l e n a r y power t o r e l a x o r s u s ­ pend any s p e c i f i c r u l e when, i n h i s o p in io n , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l r u l e w i l l r e s u l t I n i n j u s t i c e in t h e p a r t i c u ­ l a r c a se a t b a r .

The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n from t h e Uew J e r s e y

P r a c t i c e Act o f 1913 m ight be u sed a s a p a t t e r n f o r su c h a ru le : . . . t h e s e r u l e s s h a l l be c o n s id e r e d a s g e n e r a l r u l e s f o r t h e government o f t h e c o u r t s and t h e con­ d u c t i n g o f c a u s e s , and a s t h e d e s ig n o f them I s t o f a c i l i t a t e b u s i n e s s and advance j u s t i c e , t h e y may be r e l a x e d o r d is p e n s e d w i t h by t h e c o u r t In any case

182

where I t s h a l l he m a n i f e s t t o t h e c o u r t t h a t a s t r i c t a d h e re n c e t o them w i l l work s u r p r i s e o r i n j u s t i c e .^ * We a r e J u s t s i x t y - f i v e y e a r s b e h in d England i n o u r d e l e g a t i o n o f t h e ru le - m a k in g a u t h o r i t y t o t h e c o u r t s .

The

E n g l i s h Supreme C ourt o f J u d i c a t u r e Act o f 1873 c o n s o l i d a t e d s e v e r a l c o u r t s o f t h e re a lm i n t o one s i n g l e Supreme C ourt w it h two perm an ent d i v i s i o n s , a h ig h c o u r t o f J u s t i c e and a co u rt of a p p e a l.

" D e t a i l s o f p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re a r e

l e f t t o a com m ittee o f n in e J u s t i c e s ,

i n c l u d i n g t h e Lord

C h a n c e l l o r , " a c c o r d in g t o C h a rle s Grove H a in e s , who h as b een a s t r o n g a d v o c a te o f J u d i c i a l re fo rm s f o r many y e a r s .

R efer­

r in g to th e f l e x i b i l i t y of th e p ro cedu re under th e E n g lish J u d i c a t u r e A c t, H aines c o n t i n u e s : . . . Under t h i s p r o v i s i o n , a com plete code o f p r o c e d u r e h as been p r e p a r e d by t h e J u s t i c e s r e l a t i v e t o form aand commencement of a c t i o n s , p l e a d i n g s , t r i a l , Judgm ent, e x e c u t i o n , a p p e a l s , p r o v i s i o n a l re m e d ie s , s p e c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s , and c o s t s . To n e a r l y e v e ry r u l e i s added t h e p r o v i s i o n t h a t t h e c o u r t o r Judge may, "Tn the interest of justice or convenience, make such an order and on such terms as^shall be deemed justT fTtalics not in t h e o r i g i n a T J

I n t h e new r u l e s o f F e d e r a l p r o c e d u r e , in a number o f i n s t a n c e s , t h e d i s t r i c t Judge may r e l a x or suspend t h e s t a t e d ru le .

F or i n s t a n c e , i n R ule 4, r e l a t i n g t o t h e s e r v i c e o f

summons and t h e r e t u r n t h e r e o n , w. . . . t h e c o u r t may a l l o w ^ C h a rle s Grove H ain es and B e r th a Moser H a in e s, P r i n c i p l e s and P roblem s o f Government (Hew Y ork: H arper and B r o t h e r s P u b l i s h e r s , 1 926 J, p . 4 l 6 . 2

I b id ., p . 417.

183

a n y p r o c e s s o r p r o o f o f s e r v i c e t h e r e o f t o be amended, u n l e s s i t c l e a r l y a p p e a rs t h a t m a t e r i a l p r e j u d i c e would r e s u l t t o t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e p r o c e s s 3 is s u e d .n A no ther i n s t a n c e i n w hich t h e c o u r t i s g iv e n wide d i s c r e t i o n a r y pow ers i s i n t h e m a t t e r o f e x te n d in g t h e tim e s p e c i f i e d w ith o u t w hich some a c t o r t h i n g i n t h e J u d i c i a l p r o c e s s i s r e q u i r e d o r a llo w e d t o be done r e g a r d l e s s of w h e th e r t h a t tim e l i m i t i s f i x e d by t h e r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e , o r b y a n o t i c e g iv e n u n d e r t h e r u l e s , o r by an ofcder o f c o u rt.

R ule

6

p e r m i t s t h e c o u r t t o g r a n t e x t e n s i o n s o f tim e

g e n e r a l l y , w ith o u t l i m i t a t i o n s , e x c e p t t h a t t h e tim e l i m i t f i x e d f o r t a k i n g a n a p p e a l may n o t be e n l a r g e d and t h e c o u r t i s r e s t r i c t e d c i n g r a n t i n g an e x t e n s i o n o f tim e f o r f i l i n g o p p o sin g a f f i d a v i t s when a m otion f o r a new t r i a l i s b a se d on a f f i d a v i t s ; t h a t r e s t r i c t i o n l i m i t s t h e p e r m i s s i b l e . 4 e x t e n s i o n t o o n ly t e n d a y s . In t h e m a t t e r o f amending p l e a d i n g s , R ule 15 n o t o n ly p e r m i t s t h e c o u r t t o g r a n t le a v e t o amend i n c a s e s where t h e

S R ule 4 ( h ) , R u le s o f C ifril P ro c e d u re f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u rts o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s T W a sh in g to n : U n ite d S t a t e s G-overnment P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 3 8 ), p . 5, and t h e same in R ule 4 ( h ) , R u le s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e S u p e r i o r C o u rts o f A riz o n a (P h o e n ix : S t a t e Bar o f A riz o n a , 1 9 4 0 ), p . 7. 4 R u le c 6 , R u le s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u rts o f t h e U n ite d S t a l e s , o p . c i t . , p p .""7-8, and t h e same i n Rule 6 , R u le s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e S u p e r i o r C o u rts Of A r i z o n a , o p . c i t . , p p . 9 -1 1 .

184

r i g h t i s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e s t a t ed r u l e s , b u t t h e r u l e adds, " . . .

and l e a v e s h a l l be f r e e l y g iv e n when j u s t i c e 5

so r e q u i r e s . " m

W ith r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n t o be p la c e d upon t h e r u l e s g e n e r a l l y , R u le 1 s e e k s t o p r e v e n t a s t r i c t and n a rro w c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e i r e n fo rc e m e n t; i t p r o v i d e s t h a t , . . They £ th e r u l e s ]

s h a l l be c o n s tr u e d t o s e c u r e t h e 0

j u s t , sp eed y , and i n e x p e n s iv e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f e v e r y a c t i o n . ” I t i s q u ite a p p a re n t, th e r e f o r e , t h a t th e s p i r i t of t h e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re i n F e d e r a l C o u rts i s t o g iv e t h e c o u r ts d i s c r e t i o n a r y pow ers i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f f u r t h e r i n g j u s t i c e on t h e m e r i t s o f ea ch c a se r a t h e r t h a n on t e c h n i c a l ­ i t i e s ; how ever, t h e l e t t e r o f t h e r u l e s seems t o f a l l s h o r t of th a t o b je c tiv e .

In t h e f i r s t p l a c e , R u le 83 p r o h i b i t s

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u rts from making o r amending r u l e s g o v e rn in g I t s p r a c t i c e vdiich a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w ith t h e new s e t o f r u l e s ; t h e r e f o r e , u n l e s s t h e p a r t i c u l a r new r u l e i n q u e s t i o n has a p ro v iso p e r m ittin g i t s r e la x a tio n or su sp en sio n , th e D i s t r i c t C ourt i s w ith o u t power t o do s o . The one g r e a t , o u t s t a n d i n g d e f e c t o f t h e s e new r u l e s 5

Rule 15 Ca) , R u le s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u rts o f t he U n ite d S t a t e s , 0 3 3 . c i t . , p p . 20-21, and t h e same i n R ule 15 ( a ) , R ules o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e S u p e r i o r C o u rts o f A r i z o n a , o p . c i t . , p p . 2 6 -2 7 . R ule 1, R u les o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u rts o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s , o p . c i t . , p . 1, and t h e same i n R ule 1 , R u le s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e S u p e r i o r C o u rts o f A riz o n a , o£. c i t . , p . 1. 6

185

o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u rts o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s i s t h e a b se n c e o f a p r o v i s i o n g iv i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Judge p l e n a r y powers t o r e l a x o r su sp en d t h e r u l e s when t h a t becomes n e c e s s a r y t o do J u s t i c e i n an e x c e p t i o n a l c a se or c ir c u m s ta n c e , a p r o v i s i o n su ch a s t h e one in t h e New J e r s e y 7 P r a c t i c e Act o f 19 12. C h ie f J u s t i c e C h a rle s E . Hughes, i n h i s l e t t e r o f t r a n s m i t t a l t o t h e A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s , December 20, 1937, s t a t e d t h a t Mr. J u s t i c e B ra n d e is d id n o t a p p ro v e o f t h e a d o p tio n o f t h e new r u l e s . assig n e d .

8

No r e a s o n s were

Why a J u s t i c e , who h as b een so d e f i n i t e l y c l a s s e d

a s a l i b e r a l and p r o g r e s s i v e , sh o u ld have d is a p p ro v e d t h e new r u l e s , re m a in s a n i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n . A tto r n e y - G e n e r a l Homer Cummings i s t h e a u t h o r o f S . 3040, w hich became P u b l i c —No. 415— 73d C o n g ress, approv ed June 19, 1934; U n ite d S t a t e s Code, T i t l e 28, S e c t i o n s 723B and 7 2 3 e.

That Act o f C ongress gave t o t h e Supreme C ourt

o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o p r e s c r i b e t h e new r u l e s c iv il o f / p r o c e d u r e f o r t h e F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t s . In h i s l e t t e r o f t r a n s m i t t a l t o H o n o rab le Henry F . A s h u r s t , Chairm an, Committee on t h e J u d i c i a r y , U n ite d S t a t e s S e n a te , t h e A t t o r n e y 7

S u p r a , p p . 1 7 4 -7 5 .

^ R u le s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u rts o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s , o p. c i t . , p . v.

186

G e n e ra l s t a t e d t h a t c o n t r o v e r s i e s and d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s e c o n t i n u a l l y t o p la g u e t h e c o u r t s and t h e B a r.

Xf t h a t be

t r u e —and o b v i o u s ly i t i s —t h e n o n ly t h e p r e v i o u s l y s u g g e s te d p l e n a r y pow ers o f Court t o r e l a x o r su sp en d t h e e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s can b r i n g about com plete j u s t i c e on i t s m e r i t s i n e v e ry c a s e , so f a r a s t h a t i s humanly p o s s i b l e . The Supreme C ourt o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s w i l l n o t be a b l e t o c o r r e c t t h e e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s , o r p r e s c r i b e new ones f r e ' q u e n t l y enough and on su ch s h o r t n o t i c e t h a t a l l t h a t i s t o be d e s i r e d w i l l be a c c o m p lis h e d .

T h is a l s o h o ld s t r u e f o r

t h e s t a t e supreme c o u r t s . The f o l lo w in g i s q u o ted from t h a t l e t t e r o f t r a n s m i t ­ t a l from t h e A t to r n e y - G e n e r a l t o S e n a to r A s h u r s t : . . . The en actm e n t o f t h i s b i l l would b r i n g ab out u n i f o r m i t y and s i m p l i c i t y i n t h e p r a c t i c e i n a c t i o n s a t law i n F e d e r a l c o u r t s and t h u s r e l i e v e t h e c o u r t s and t h e b a r o f c o n t r p v e r s i e s and d i f f i c u l t i e s w hich a re c o n tin u a lly ~ a r t sin g i t a l i c s hot in th e o r i g i n a l w h o lly a p a r t from t h e m e r i t s o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n i n w hich t h e y a r e i n t e r e s t e d . I t seems t o me t h a t t h e r e can be no s u b s t a n t i a l o b j e c t i o n t o t h e en a ctm en t o f a m easure w hich would p ro d u c e so d e s i r a b l e a r e s u l t , w hich , a p a r t from i t s i n h e r e n t m e r i t , would a l s o , i t i s b e lie v e d , c o n trib u te to a re d u c tio n in th e cost o f l i t i g a t i o n in th e F e d e ra l c o u rts . X r e q u e s t t h a t you i n t r o d u c e t h e e n c lo s e d b i l l and hope t h a t you may be a b l e t o g iv e i t y o u r s u p p o r t .

9 L e t t e r o f Homer Cummings, A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l, t o Hon. Henry F . A s h u r s t , U n ite d S t a t e s S e n a te , March 1, 1934, In R ep o rt Ho. 1049, 73d C o n g re s s, 2d S e s s i o n , S e n a t e , C a le n d a r Ho. 1113.

187 I n an a d d r e s s d e l i v e r e d a t t h e T w e n t y - f i f t h a n n u a l b a n q u e t o f t h e Few York County Lawyers A s s o c i a t i o n , March 14, 1934, t h i r t e e n days a f t e r t h e above l e t t e r o f t r a n s m i t ­ t a l was w r i t t e n , t h e A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l s a i d : C o u rts e x i s t t o v i n d i c a t e and e n f o r c e s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s . P ro c e d u re i s m e re ly t h e m ac h in e ry d e s ig n e d t o s e c u r e an o r d e r l y p r e s e n t a t i o n o f l e g a l c o n t r o v e r s i e s . I f t h a t m a c h in e ry i s so c o m p lic a te d t h a t I t s e r v e s t o d e l a y j u s t i c e o r t o e n t r a p t h e unwary I t i s n o t f u n c t i o n i n g p r o p e r l y and sh o u ld be o v e r h a u l e d . 1 0 The perm anent C ourt o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l J u s t i c e

(World

C o u rt) made an a p p ro a c h t o f l e x i b i l i t y i n i t s r u l e s o f p r o ­ c e d u re b y p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e c o u r t may a d o p t o t h e r r u l e s b e s i d e s t h e i r r e g u l a r code I f I t i s j o i n t l y p ro p o se d by t h e p a r t i e s c o n c e rn e d , due r e g a r d b e in g p a id t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r c irc u m s ta n c e o f ea ch c a s e .

The f a l l a c y o f such a p r o v i s i o n ,

were i t t o be in c lu d e d I n t h e r u l e s o f t h e F e d e r a l o r s t a t e c o u r t s , would be t h a t no l i t i g a n t who m ight g a in an a d v a n ­ t a g e by t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f an e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e would c o n se n t t o any r e l a x a t i o n o r d i s p e n s a t i o n o f t h a t r u l e i n t h e i n t e r ­ e s t o f j u s t i c e i f su ch r e l a x a t i o n o f t h e r u l e fa v o re d t h e o p p o sin g p a r t y . P r i o r t o S eptem ber 16, 1938, t h e d a t e on w hich t h e new r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s went i n t o e f -

Homer Cummings, A tto r n e y - G e n e r a l , "Im m ediate P roblem s f o r t h e B a r . " Docket (West P u b l i s h i n g company) IV (Autumn, 1 9 3 4 ), p . 3699.

188 f e e t , t h e F e d e r a l C o n fo rm ity Act o f 1872 c o n t r o l l e d t h e p r o c e d u r e i n a c t i o n s a t law i n t h e F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t s . T hat a c t p ro v id e d t h a t p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re in su c h a c t i o n s " s h a l l conform a s n e a r a s may b e " t o t h a t w hich i s fo llo w e d i n t h e s t a t e i n xvhich t h e c o u r t s i t s .

That a s - n e a r - a s - m a y - b e

p r o v i s i o n , u n d e r t h e l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n g iv e n t o i t , h a s i n tr o d u c e d a b e w i l d e r i n g mass o f e x c e p t i o n s .

In r e f e r r i n g

t o t h e p ro p o se d new r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e , w hich s i n c e have b e ­ come a r e a l i t y , Homer Cummings s t a t e d f u r t h e r In h i s a d d r e s s t o t h e Hew York County Lawyers A s s o c i a t i o n i n s p e a k in g o f t h e t h e n - p r o p o s e d new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re i n F e d e r a l C o u rts: Under such an a rra n g e m e n t we would have e v e ry r i g h t t o a n t i c i p a t e few er d e c i s i o n s upon t e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n s o f p r o c e d u r e , w h ile t h e a t t e n t i o n t h e Bench and B ar c o u ld be d i r e c t e d t o t h e s u b s ta n c e o f r i g h t r a t h e r th a n t o I t s fo rm . M oreover, su ch a sy ste m te n d s t o p r e s e r v e t h e t r u e b a la n c e b etw een t h e l e g i s l a t i v e , and J u d i c i a l b r a n c h e s o f t h e g o v ern m e n t, and i s t h e r e f o r e i n harmony w ith b a s ic c o n s t itu tio n a l p r i n c i p l e s . The p o l i c y I am a d v o c a t in g i s n o t an u n t r i e d , t h e o ­ r e t i c a l r e f o r m . I t h a s b e e n i n f u l l f o r c e In E ngland s i n c e t h e J u d i c a t u r e Act o f 1873. The B n g l is h admin­ i s t r a t i o n o f J u s t i c e i s r i g h t l y renow ned. L e g a l w r i t e r s a t t r i b u t e no s m a ll s h a r e o f I t s c e l e r i t y and s u c c e s s t o t h e f a c t t h a t p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re a r e r e g u l a t e d b y r u l e s p r e s c r i b e d by a r u l e s com m ittee, c o n s i s t i n g of e i g h t Judges and f o u r l a w y e r s . ^ (A ccording t o C h a rle s Grove H a in e s , t h e r u l e s com m ittee c o n s i s t s o f " n in e J u s t i c e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e Lord C h a n c e l l o r ."1*0 ^ 12 op. c i t . ,

I b i d . , p . 3700. ------C h a rle s d ro v e H ain es and B e rth a Moser H a in e s , p . 417.

189 Conceded, t h e n , t h a t tlie new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re in b o th t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s and t h e s t a t e c o u r t s o f A riz o n a a r e a trem endous improvement over t h e o ld r u l e s ,

in o r d e r t o

a c h ie v e t h e maximum r e s u l t s i n t h e j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e c o u r t s s h o u ld be g iv e n p l e n ­ a r y pow ers t o r e l a x o r suspen d t h e e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s when t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n i n an y p a r t i c u l a r c a se w i l l work an i n j u s ­ tic e *

The d e c l a r e d o b j e c t i v e s o f b o th t h e f e d e r a l and t h e

s t a t e * s new r u l e s a r e t o speed up l i t i g a t i o n and have each c a se d e c id e d on i t s m e r i t s *

The e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s go a lo n g

way i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n , b u t t h e y s to p s h o r t o f t h e g o a l i n n o t p r o v i d i n g f o r t h o s e u n u s u a l s i t u a t i o n s —t h o s e e x c e p tio n s t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e s —w hich c a l l f o r r e l a x a t i o n o r d i s p e n s a ­ t i o n of th e e s ta b lis h e d r u le s to f u r th e r j u s tic e .

CHAPTER X I

PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE P r o b a b ly t h e most p r o g r e s s i v e s t e p tow ard im p ro v in g th e J u d ic ia l a d m in is tra tio n o f J u s tic e i s th e "stre a m lin in g * o f p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re a s h a s b een p r o v id e d f o r in t h e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o c e d u r e i n b o th t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s and A riz o n a s t a t e c o u r ts *

P r e - t r i a l p r o c e d u r e i s t h e p r e v ie w

o f th e la w su it . T here a r e two t h e o r i e s o f p r e - t r i a l p r o c e d u r e : (1) t h e o ld th e o ry ,, w hich e x i s t s u n d e r b o t h common law p l e a d i n g s and u n d e r t h e p r e v a i l i n g code p l e a d i n g s o f to d a y , I s t h a t t h e s o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o lo o k a f t e r p r e - t r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n s I s upon c o u n s e l and t h a t t h e c o u r t* s o n ly f u n c t i o n i s t o r e f e r e e c o u n s e l* s m an eu v erin g f o r p o s i t i o n s o f a d v a n ta g e and t o re m a in p a s s i v e ; (2) t h e new t h e o r y , M ilch I s p a r t o f t h e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o c e d u r e , i s t h a t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s upon t h e c o u r t t o t a k e t h e i n i t i a t i v e and t o c o n tin u e t o be t h e m o t i v a t i n g and d i r e c t i n g f o r c e i n e x p e d i t i n g t h e d e t e r ­ m in a tio n o f t h e I s s u e s t o be t r i e d , and i f p o s s i b l e , t o b rin g th e l i t i g a n t s to g e th e r in a s o lu tio n o f th e d isp u te w ith o u t t r i a l *

Under t h i s t h e o r y t h e c o u r t ^ s a t t i t u d e i s

a c t i v e I n s t e a d o f p a s s iv e * p reThe n e w / t r i a l p r o c e d u r e s u b s t i t u t e s in f o r m a l c o n f e r ­ e n c e s — In most c a s e s one i s s u f f i c i e n t —a t w hich t h e Judge

191 and t h e a t t o r n e y s g e t t o g e t h e r and a c c o m p lis h w h at, u n d e r t h e old p r o c e d u r e , was a c c o m p lish e d t o a l e s s e r d e g re e by a p r o t r a c t e d s e r i e s o f s k i r m i s h e s i n c o u r t o v er d e m u rre rs and a wide a s s o r tm e n t o f m o tio n s . The a d v a n ta g e s o f t h e new p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re a r e : ( 1 ) t h e im m ediate a d v a n ta g e o f n a rro w in g t h e i s s u e s , p r o v i d ­ in g f o r s t i p u l a t i o n o f n o n - c o n te s te d f a c t s , and a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e n e c e s s i t y o f a c t u a l l y go in g t o t r i a l ;

(2 ) th e u ltim a te

a d v a n ta g e o f a c h i e v i n g s w i f t e r and c h e a p e r J u s t i c e w h ich i s ac c o m p lish e d by s t a b i l i z i n g t h e t r i a l , d o c k e t th r o u g h t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f l a s t - m i n u t e c o n tin u a n c e s w hich a r e so c o s t l y b e c a u s e o f t h e tim e l o s t by t r i a l Judges d u r i n g c o u r t h o u rs t h r o u g h t h i s e n f o rc e d i d l e n e s s , by a v o id in g t r i a l i n c a s e s w here i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y — e l i m i n a t i n g t h e r,dead-Woodn c a s e s w hich a r e l i k e l y t o be s e t t l e d v o l u n t a r i l y e i t h e r b e f o r e o r d u r i n g t h e t r i a l anyhow, and by t h e c o u r t ' s a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n l e n d i n g i t s a i d t o t h e l i t i g a n t s t o b r i n g a b o u t an u n d e r ­ s t a n d i n g and s e t t l e m e n t w ith o u t a fo rm a l t r i a l . I n A riz o n a t h e o ld p r e - t r i a l p r a c t i c e h as b e e n r e p l a c e d b y t h e new u n d e r t h e p r e s e n t r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o c e d u r e w hich became e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y I , 1940.

In t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s , t h e

new p ro c e d u re h as b ee n i n e f f e c t s i n c e Septem ber 1, 1938. Under t h e o ld p r o c e d u r e , a lth o u g h c e r t a i n l i m i t e d m ech a n ic s f o r p r o v i d i n g d i s c o v e r y and f o r r e q u e s t i n g a d m is sio n o f p r o v a b le f a c t s were a v a i l a b l e , t h e u s e t h e r e o f h a s b een

192 l e f t e n t i r e l y t o t h e i n i t i a t i v e o f coun sel* C i r c u i t Judge Hal. W. Adams, o f Mayo, F l o r i d a , d e s c r i b e s t h e r e p e a t e d s k i r ­ m ish e s t h a t t a k e p l a c e in t h e t y p i c a l p r e l i m i n a r y p ro c e d u re s t o d a y i n t h o s e s t a t e s w hich have n o t ad o p te d t h e new in f o r m a l p r e - t r i a l c o n f e re n c e method and i n w hich t h e judg e m e re ly s u s t a i n s o r d e n i e s m o tio n s , d e m u rr e rs , e t c * , a s an e x h i b i t i o n i n w hich t h e r e a r e • . . h e a te d arg u m en ts and arm -waving a b o u t d u p l i c i t y , n e g a t i v e p r e g n a n t s , re p u g n a n c y , s u r p l u s a g e , s i m i l i t e r s , p u i s d a r r e i n c o n tin u a n c e , and o t h e r l i k e t w i d d l e tw a d d le w hich h as found lodgm ent i n our c o u r t p ro c e d u re t o make slo w and d i f f i c u l t t h e f a i r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e law* I t i s n o t s t r a n g e t h a t , where ju d g e s c o n c e iv e i t a d i s c h a r g e o f d u t y m e re ly t o s i t and w atch j u s t i c e f l o a t b y , t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r s s h o u ld a v a i l th e m s e lv e s o f e v e r y f a c t o r w hich may p r e j u d i c e t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e i r o p p o n e n ts , A l b e r t K ocourek, p r o f e s s o r o f la w a t n o r th w e s te r n U n i v e r s i t y , r e f e r r i n g t o t h e s i m p l i c i t y , economy, and speed o f j u s t i c e In a n c i e n t Rome, in fo rm s u s t h a t t h e h i g h e s t j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r o f t h e Roman S t a t e r e a l l y f u n c t i o n e d when t h e i s s u e s o f a l a w s u i t w ere b e in g d e f in e d and l i m i t e d w hich, K ocourek c la im s , i s " t h e most c r i t i c a l and im p o r ta n t s ta g e of

H al W. Adams, "A pply B u s in e s s Methods I n Making Up I s s u e , " J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d i c a t u r e S o c i e t y , XXII (December, 1 9 3 8 ], X^4.

193 a le g a l co n tro v e rsy ^ ”

E

To q u o te him f u r t h e r :

I t i s one o f t h e c r u e l e s t i l l u s i o n s w hich h a s e v e r h e e n f a s t e n e d on e r r i n g human n a t u r e t h a t by a l o g i c a l sy ste m o f p a p e r p l e a d i n g s , c o n t r o l l e d e n t i r e l y by t h e p a r t i e s , two a d v e r s a r i e s c o u ld be b ro u g h t a g a i n s t t h e i r w i l l t g s t a t e t h e e x a c t scope o f t h e i r l e g a l d i f f e r ­ ences. I n Germany, p r e - t r i a l p r a c t i c e , b a se d on t h e German C o d ero f 1877, a s amended In 19E4, r e q u i r e s t h e judge f i r s t t o t r y t o c o n c i l i a t e t h e p a r t i e s , an d, i f he f a i l In t h a t , t h e n . .. . he i s e x p l i c i t l y ch arg ed w it h t h e d u ty o f b r i n g ­ i n g a b o u t a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e cau se i n a l l i t s a s p e c t s and o f s e e in g t h a t i t i s so fo rw ard ed a s t o adm it o f d i s p o s i t i o n , where f e a s i b l e , a t a s i n g l e h e a r i n g b e f o r e th e c o lle g ia l c o u r t. The o ld p r e - t r i a l p r o c e d u r e , w hich s t i l l p r e v a i l s t o ­ day i n most o f o u r s t a t e c o u r t s , h as been i n h e r i t e d from t h e E n g l i s h p r i n c i p l e o f p a r t y - p r e s e n t a t i o n by w hich t h e p a r t i e s th e m s e lv e s framed t h e i r own c o n t r o v e r s i e s a f t e r w hich t h e y l a i d them b e f o r e t h e c o u r t f o r d e c i s i o n .

The ju d g e s rem ained

p a s s i v e i n t h e fra m in g o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s i e s , b e in g i n no way co n c e rn e d w i t h what t h e p a r t i e s b ro u g h t fo rw a rd .

The p l a i n ­

t i f f *s c a se m ight have had no s u b s t a n t i a l b a s i s w h a te v e r and t h e d e f e n s e m ight have b een p u r e l y f i c t i t i o u s , b u t w h a te v e r 3

A lb e r t K ocoureh, "'Speedy J u s t i c e i n A n cie n t Rome.” J o u r n a l o f t h e Am erican J u d i c a t u r e S o c i e t y , Y (December, I M T T T ' i U S . ------------------------------- ~ ---------------------------------------

^ £ °c * e it « 4 Unsigned a r t i c l e , " P r e - T r i a l P ro c e d u r e — F ra n c e and Germany." J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d i c a t u r e S o c i e t y , XXI (O c to b e r, 1937}", 8 b .

194 t h e p a r t i e s a s s e r t e d o r d e n ie d was t a k e n a t I t s f a e e v a lu e as a b a sis fo r t r i a l .

I n t h o s e s t a t e c o u r t s t o d a y , where t h e

o l d p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re p r e v a i l s , t h e ju d g e s n e v e r s e e k Jso p r o t e c t t h e m s e lv e s o r t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n from t h e u s e l e s s t r i a l o f i s s u e d b a s e d upon a l l e g a t i o n s o r d e n i a l s w h ich have no c o l o r a b l e e x i s t e n c e i n f a c t . The new " s t r e a m li n e d * r u l e s o f p r e - t r i a l p r o c e d u r e , w hich a r e r e p l a c i n g t h e o ld r u l e s b a s e d on i n h e r i t e d B n g l is h t r a d i t i o n s , w ere f i r s t p u t i n t o u s e i n D e t r o i t , f o r c e d I t upon t h e D e t r o i t Bench.

n e c e s s ity

I n 1929 t h e law t r i a l

c a l e n d a r was a b o u t f o r t y - f i v e m onths—n e a r l y f o u r y e a r s - b e h in d and t h e c h a n c e ry d i v i s i o n o f t h e e o u r t was a b o u t t w e n t y - f o u r m onths b e h in d .

A s p e c i a l c o n c i l i a t i o n d o c k e t was

s e t up f o r la w c a s e s and a s i m i l a r one f o r c h a n c e ry , t h i s grew t h e p r e s e n t p r e - t r i a l d o c k e t i n D e t r o i t .

Out o f The r e ­

s u l t i s t h a t l a s t y e a r t h e c a le n d a r was n o t more th a n t e n m onths b e h i n d .

A s y s te m , modeled a f t e r t h e D e t r o i t p l a n , was

p u t i n t o e f f e c t i n S u f f o l k County ( B o s to n ), M a s s a c h u s e tts , i n 1955 w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t d u r i n g t h e n e x t two y e a r s , a b o u t o n ef o u r t h o f t h e c a s e s w ere s e t t l e d a t t h e p r e - t r i a l c a l l . I n Los A ngeles t h e modern p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re was 5 i n t r o d u c e d i n March, 193 7. W ith i t s f i f t y o r more Ju d g e s, R

A nnual R e p o rt o f t h e A m erican B ar A s s o c i a t i o n , V o l. 63 (1 9 3 8 ), p . 4 0 7 .

195 t h e Los A n g eles s y s te m p r o b a b ly i s t h e l a r g e s t s i n g l e b en ch i n t h e w orld*

More r e c e n t l y , t h e modern p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re

h a s b een p u t i n t o e f f e c t i n t o P i t t s b u r g h and i n a few o t h e r l a r g e u rb a n c e n t e r s .

A lth o u g h t h e g r e a t e s t b e n e f i t s have

r e s u l t e d from i t s u s e i n t h e l a r g e c i t i e s , i t a l s o h a s b een fo u n d e f f e c t i v e and u s e f u l i n one-man c o u r t s .

Most o f t h e

S u p e r i o r C o u rts o f A riz o n a a r e i n t h a t c a te g o ry # The p e r t i n e n t s e c t i o n s o f t h e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o ­ c e d u r e , w hich a r e i d e n t i c a l b o t h a s t o c o n t e n t and r u l e number i n t h e f e d e r a l and i n t h e new A riz o n a r u l e s , a r e t h e fo llo w in g : R ule 7 . ( c ) D e m u rre rs > P l e a s , e t c . A b o l i s h e d . D e m u rrers, p T e a s , and e x c e p t i o n s g f o r i n s u f f i e i e n c y o f a p l e a d i n g s h a l l n o t be u s e d . R ule 1 6 . P r e - T r i a l P r o c e d u r e ; F o r m u la tin g I s s u e s . I n an y a c t i o n , t h e c o u r t may i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n d i r e c t th e a tto rn e y s f o r th e p a r t i e s to appear b e fo re i t fo r a c o n f e re n c e t o c o n s i d e r (1 ) The s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e i s s u e s ; (B) The n e c e s s i t y o r d e s i r a b i l i t y o f amendments t o th e p le a d in g s; (5 ) The p o s s i b i l i t y o f o b t a i n i n g a d m is s io n s o f f a c t and o f docum ents w hich w i l l a v o id u n n e c e s s a r y p r o o f ; (4 ) The l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e number o f e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s ;

^ R ule 7, R u le s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u rts o f t h e U n ite d S t a l e s (W ashington: Unite& S t a t e s Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 3 8 ), p . 9., and t h e same i n R ule 7 , R u le s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e s u p e r i o r C o u rts o f A riz o n a (P h o e n ix : S t a t e B ar o f A r i z o n a ,” 1^40}, p . I S .

196 (5 ) The a d v i s a b i l i t y o f a p r e li m i n a r y r e f e r e n c e o f is s u e d t o a m a s te r f o r f i n d i n g s t o be u se d a s e v id e n c e when t h e t r i a l i s t o be b y J u ry ; ( 6 ) Such o t h e r m a t t e r s a s may a i d i n th e d i s p o s i t i o n o f th e a c tio n . The c o u r t s h a l l make an o r d e r w hich r e c i t e s t h e a c t i o n ta k e n a t t h e c o n f e r e n c e , th e amendments a llo w e d t o th e p l e a d i n g s , and t h e a g re e m e n ts made b y th e p a r ­ t i e s a s t o any o f t h e m a tte r s c o n s id e r e d , and w hich l i m i t s t h e i s s u e s f o r t r i a l t o th o s e n o t d is p o s e d o f b y a d m is s io n s o r a g re e m e n ts o f c o u n s e l; and su ch o r d e r when e n te r e d c o n t r o l s t h e sub s e q u e n t c o u rs e o f t h e a c t i o n , u n l e s s m o d ifie d a t t h e t r i a l t o p r e v e n t m ani­ f e s t i n j u s t i c e . The c o u r t i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n may e s t a b l i s h by r u l e a p r e - t r i a l c a le n d a r on w hich a c t i o n s may be p la c e d f o r c o n s i d e r a t io n a s above p ro v id e d and may e i t h e r c o n fin e t h e c a le n d a r t o J u ry a c t i o n s o r t o n o n - J u r y a c t i o n s o r e x te n d i t t o a l l a c t i o n s . ” H arro w in g t h e i s s u e s t o be t r i e d , b y d e f in i n g and l i m i t i n g them b e f o r e t r i a l , s a v e s much o f th e c o u r t 9s tim e . I n p r a c t i c a l l y e v e ry e a s e t h a t h a s n o t gone th ro u g h th e m odern p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re , much tim e may be ta k e n up w ith p r o o f o f s u c h m a tte r s a s t h e w id th o f a s t r e e t , o f t h e c o n te n ts o f a p u b lic r e c o r d , o f t h e amount o f a d o c t o r ’ s b i l l , o r o f s i m i l a r o t h e r m atters- w hich th e o p p o sin g p a r t y i s n o t w i l l i n g t o a d m it In h i s p le a d in g s b u t w h ic h , once p ro v e d , c a n n o t be d is p r o v e d , and w hich th e o p p o sin g c o u n s e l l i k e l y w i l l ad m it a t a m odern p r e - t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e .

7

R ule 1 6 , R u les o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u rts o f th e U n ite# ' S t a t e s , o p . c i t ♦, p ~ 2 2 , and t h e same i n Rule*TL6 , R u les of C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r t h e S u p e r io r C o u rts o f A riz o n a , o p . c i t . . p p . 2 8 -2 9 .

197

Judge G eorge C. Sweeney, o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u rt f o r tlie 'E a s te rn D i s t r i c t o f M a ssa c h u se tts* g iv e s a num ber o f t y p i c a l exam ples o f m a tte r s w hich can be a g re e d up­ on b e f o r e t r i a l and t h u s , by s t i p u l a t i o n o f c o u n s e l, can be rem oved from t h e n e c e s s i t y o f p r o o f .

F or i n s t a n c e , i n a u to ­

m o b ile t o r t c a s e s , he found i t e a s y t o o b ta in a d m is s io n s and s t i p u l a t io n s c o v e r in g : A. The l e g a l i t y o f th e r e g i s t r a t i o n o f th e m otor v e h ic l e in v o lv e d , and th e l i c e n s e o f t h e o p e r a t o r . B. She a g e n cy o f th e d r i v e r . C. The a d m is s io n o f p h o to g ra p h s o f th e lo c u s and th e v e h ic le . D. The a d m is s io n o f h o s p i t a l r e p o r t s . E . The a d m is s io n t h a t t h e c o l l i s i o n o c c u rre d on a p u b l i c highw ay. F . A greem ent a s t o th e law o f a f o r e ig n c o u n try , 3 w here th e a c c id e n t o c c u rre d i n su c h f o r e ig n c o u n tr y . A d m issio n s and s t i p u l a t i o n s , su c h a s th e f o llo w in g , i n p u b l i c l i a b i l i t y c a s e s h e lp e d t o n a rro w th e i s s u e s w hich o th e r w is e would have r e q u ir e d p r o o f by th e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f te s tim o n y : A. S t i p u l a t i o n a s t o o w n ersh ip and c o n t r o l o f th e p re m is e s in v o lv e d .

B. I n la n d lo r d and t e n a n t c a s e s , t h e s t a t u s o f th e p l a i n t i f f , w h e th e r t e n a n t - a t - w i l l o r l e s s e e . 8

G eorge G. Sw eeney, "E x p e rt Use o f P r e t r i a l D ocket i n F e d e r a l C o u r t. n J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c i e t y , X X III (J u n e , 1939}, 1 2 .

198

C. I f n o t a t e n a n t , w h e th e r b u s in e s s v i s i t o r , g u e s t o f t e n a n t , t r e s p a s s e r o r lic e n s e e * D* S ta te m e n t o f th e s p e c i f i c d e f e c t i n th e p re m is e s upon w hich t h e p l a i n t i f f re lie fs * E. W hether a c c i d e n t o c c u rre d on a common s ta ir w a y o r p assag ew ay o r a re a * S t i p u l a t i o n o f f a c t s , su ch a s in th e p re c e d in g i l l u s ­ t r a t i o n s , o f t e n e l i m in a t e s a g r e a t many w itn e s s e s from th e tria l.

Only such w itn e s s e s may be u se d a s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o

f u r n i s h te s tim o n y on t h o s e p o i n t s a s t o w hich t h e p a r t i e s a r e In a c t h a l and h o n e s t d is a g re e m e n t.

I t I s n o t uncommon

p ro c e d u re f o r o p p o sin g c o u n s e l t o announce "no c r o s s exam ina­ t i o n " a f t e r more o r l e s s ex ten d e d d i r e c t e x a m in a tio n o f a w itn e s s .

In m ost c a s e s th o s e m a tte r s co u ld have b een a d m itte d

by c o u n s e l u n d e r t h e new p r e - t r i a l p r o c e d u r e .

Such a d m is sio n s

make t h e t r i a l q u ic k e r and sav e money, b o th f o r th e l i t i g a n t s and t h e p u b l i c . I n s p e a k in g a b o u t t h e s e p r e - t r i a l c o n fe re n c e s i n w hich c o u n s e l and t h e Judge g e t t o g e t h e r in th e Ju d g e r s cham bers and d i s c u s s t h e i s s u e s u n d e r c irc u m s ta n c e s f r e e from th e u s u a l c o u rt-ro o m r e s t r a i n t —no w o rd -fo r-w o rd s h o rth a n d r e ­ p o r t e r f s r e c o r d o f th e c o n fe re n c e I s made— Judge Adams re m a rk s: I n su c h c o n fe re n c e a l l th e im m a te ria l and i r r e l e v a n t m a tte r can be s c re e n e d o u t , a l l th e f r o t h l a d l e d o f f and OOO

. . , * .

..

I b ia .. p . 13.

199

a c a se made re a d y f o r t r i a l upon t h e r e a l c la im o f p l a i n t i f f and t h e r e a l d e fe n s e o f d e fe n d a n t* 3*® T h is new p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re h a s etfen encouraged to get a t t o r n e y s / t o g e t h e r i n t h e i r own o f f i c e s and work o u t s t i p u l a ­ t i o n s o f f a c t s b etw een th e m s e lv e s b e f o r e a p p e a rin g a t th e ju d g e *s cham bers f o r t h e p r e - t r i a l c o n fe re n c e so t h a t th e i n c o r p o r a t io n o f t h e s e s t i p u l a t i o n s b y t h e c o u r t in i t s r e c o r d h a s b een p r a c t i c a l l y th e e x te n t o f th e b u rd e n p la c e d upon t h e c o u r t , t h e ju d g e b e in g s a t i s f i e d a s t o th e s u f f i e n c y o f th e s t i p u l a t i o n s .

The judge so m etim es, w h ile c o n d u c tin g

a p r e - t r i a l h e a r i n g , can co n v in ce th e p l a i n t i f f o f t h e f u t i l ­ i t y o f a tte m p tin g p r o o f o f c e r t a i n a l l e g a t i o n s in h i s com­ p l a i n t , and th u s t h e d e fe n d a n t i s s p a re d t h e expense o f mak­ in g p r e p a r a t i o n s t o m eet w h a te v e r p r o o f s m ight be p r e s e n te d i n s u p p o rt o f a somewhat s p e c io u s c la im . /

The n e x t a d v a n ta g e o f a m odern p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re i s i t s e f f e c t i n s t a b i l i z i n g t h e t r i a l d o c k e t and sp e e d in g up c o u r t w o rk .

A f t e r a l l c a s e s have gone th ro u g h th e s o r t i n g

p r o c e s s o f t h e p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re , i t le a v e s o n ly th o s e c a s e s f o r t h e a c t u a l t r i a l d o ck e t w hich have b een c e r t i f i e d b y c o u r t and c o u n s e l a s re a d y f o r im m ediate t r i a l on c e r t a i n w e ll- d e f in e d i s s u e s .

T here w i l l be no l a s t m in u te r e q u e s ts

f o r amendments o f p l e a d i n g s ; t h e r e w i l l be no d e la y s w h ile

10

H a l ¥♦ Adams, l o c . o i t .

200

d o c to r s make a p h y s i c a l e x a m in a tio n o f a c o m p la in a n t ; and t h e r e w i l l have b ee n re d u c e d t o a minimum th e n e c e s s i t y f o r tria l-a m e n d m e n ts cau sed by s u r p r is e *

The t r i a l d o c k e t w i l l

c o n ta in o n ly t h e l i v e c a s e s , th e d e a d -w o o d -c a se s h a v in g b een c u lle d o u t. S in c e th e p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re c r y s t a l l i z e s t h e i s s u e s w h ich r e q u i r e p r o o f b y te s tim o n y a t t h e t r i a l , and s in c e o p p o sin g c o u n s e l and t h e c o u rt become f a i r l y f a m i l i a r w ith a l l p h a s e s o f t h e c a s e , th e y a r e b e t t e r a b le t o make an e s t i ­ m ate o f t h e tim e l i k e l y t o be r e q u ir e d t o t r y t h e c a s e . E x p e rie n c e h a s p ro v e d su c h e s tim a te s have b e e n u n u s u a lly a c c u ra te .

By n o t i n g t h e e s tim a te d r e q u ir e d tim e f o r each c a s e ,

t h e c o u r t can so d i s t r i b u t e th e s h o r t and lo n g c a s e s t h a t th e t r i a l judge w i l l be a b le t o spend t h e maximum amount o f th e b u s in e s s day o f t h e c o u r t i n a c t u a l l y c o n d u c tin g t r i a l p r o ­ c e d u re .

S h o rt c a s e s w h ich can be t r i e d i n a few h o u rs can be

s c h e d u le d t o f i l l i n w hat o th e rw is e w ouldbbe v a c a n t s p a c e s i n t h e tim e o f t h e t r i a l judge *s c o u r t h o u r s . A n o th er cumbersome and la b o r i o u s t r i a l p ro c e d u re , w hich o f t e n can be e l i m in a t e d , i s th e t y p i c a l d i r e c t , c r o s s , r e ­ d i r e c t , and r e - c r o s s e x a m in a tio n o f w itn e s s e s t o d e v e lo p f a c t s . An in s t a n c e o f t h i s k in d w hich o c c u rre d in D e t r o i t i s a t y p i c a l ex am p le.

The c a se in v o lv e d a c la im o f $750,000 damages f o r

f a u l t y c o n s t r u c ti o n o f a sew e r.

S in c e d e te r m in a tio n o f t h e

amount o f damages depended on th e f i n d i n g s o f e n g in e e r s , a t

201

th e s u g g e s tio n o f t h e ju d g e , each s id e a p p o in te d one e n g in e e r t o s e rv e v i r t u a l l y a s a f r i e n d o f t h e c o u r t i n r e p o r t i n g t o t h e ju d g e h i s o p in io n on th e q u e s tio n s o f e n g in e e r in g s c ie n c e ■which w ere i n d is p u te *

T hese e n g in e e r s , c o u n se l f o r th e

r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s - l i t i g a n t , and th e ju d g e g o t t o g e t h e r i n t h r e e a f t e r - h o u r c o n fe re n c e s and d e c id e d what p ro b a b ly w ould have ta k e n two o r t h r e e weeks o f o r d i n a r y p ro c e d u re o f exam­ in i n g w itn e s s e s d u rin g t h e t r i a l *

ju d g e Adams makes a com­

p a r is o n b etw een p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u r e , such a s i n t h i s D e t r o i t c a s e , w ith m ethods u sed by b u s in e s s men i n c o n d u c tin g t h e i r a ffa irs : B u s in e s s men and men i n a l l w alk s o f l i f e r e s o r t t o c o n f e re n c e s t o s o lv e t h e i r p ro b lem s and t o d e c id e upon t h e c o u rs e t o p u rs u e i n im p o rta n t b u s in e s s m a t t e r s , and i n su c h c o n f e re n c e s th e y w a ste no tim e in t i l t i n g b ack and f o r t h a t ea ch o t h e r , b u t g e t r i g h t down t o 'b r a s s ta c k s * i n th e c o n s i d e r a t io n o f m a tte r s t o be d is c u s s e d o r d e c id e d u p o n . The a v o id a n c e o f t r i a l i n c a s e s w here i t would n o t be u s e f u l i s a n o th e r im p o rta n t a d v a n ta g e enum erated*

12

The p r e ­

t r i a l c o n fe re n c e i s n o t a s u b s t i t u t e f o r a r b i t r a t i o n p ro c e d ­ u r e w h ich some s t a t e s a l r e a d y have a d o p te d .

In p r e - t r i a l

c o n f e r e n c e s , t h e ju d g e does n o t ta k e t h e le a d i n s e e k in g t o s e t t l e c a s e s ? h ow ever, he a c t i v e l y i n v i t e s and e n c o u ra g e s

^ 12

H a l W* Adams, l o c * c it* Sup ra, p . 1 8 4 .

202

s e t t l e m e n t when i t o c c u rs t o t h e judge a s t h e s e n s i b l e s o l u ­ tio n .

Som etim es when c o u n s e l ea n n o t a g re e on b a s i s o f s e t ­

tl e m e n t , t h e y may, a t t h e i r own s u g g e s tio n , o r a t t h e su g g e s­ t i o n o f t h e c o u r t, b r i n g th e l i t i g a n t s i n t o th e ju d g e* s cham bers f o r an in fo rm a l c o n f e r e n c e .

The a d v ic e and s u g g e s tio n s o f th e

ju d g e a r e l i k e l y t o c a r r y more w e ig h t w ith th e p a r t i e s — f o r i n s t a n c e , t h e ju d g e 9s o p in io n a s t o w hat sum i s p r o p e r f o r s e t t l e m e n t , o r w hat d i f f i c u l t i e s m ight be e n c o u n te re d i n th e p a r t i c u l a r e a se o f p ro v in g freedom from c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i ­ g e n c e , o r h i s o p in io n t h a t c e r t a i n docum ents on w hich a p a r t y r e l i e s may n o t be a d m is s ib le i n e v id e n c e .

Where c a s e s a r e b ro u g h t

f o r th e m re n u is a n c e v a lu e , th e p r e - t r i a l judge may f e e l i t i s f u t i l e t o en co u rag e s e t t l e m e n t .

P e rso n a l in ju r y cases a re

t h e m ost f r e q u e n t i n t h i s c a te g o r y .

L i t i g a n t s p r o b a b ly

r e a l i z e t h a t th e ju d g e *s f a m i l i a r i t y w ith th e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s e n a b le s him t o p r e d i c t w ith some d e g re e o f a c c u ra c y w hat may h ap p e n t o th e ca se i f i t g o es t o t r i a l . T h is r a i s e s t h e q u e s tio n o f an o b je c tio n made b y some who a r e opposed t o t h e new p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re on t h e ground t h a t a ju d g e may become p r e ju d ic e d a f t e r h a v in g l i s t e n e d t o t a l k o f s e ttle m e n t and e x p r e s s e d o p in io n s a s t o d i f f i c u l t i e s l i k e l y t o be e n c o u n te re d o r am ounts in v o lv e d and t h a t , t h e r e ­ f o r e , h e may n o t be f i t t o p r e s i d e a s t r i a l ju d g e i n t h e c a s e ; how ev er, i t seems a b s u rd t o b e l i e v e t h a t a ju d g e who i s f i t t o t r y an y c a se a t a l l i s u n f i t t o t r y one c o n c e rn in g w hich

203

he h a s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n su c h s e t t l e m e n t d is c u s s io n s * I t i s n o t in f r e q u e n t t h a t an a t t o r n e y h as what he t h i n k s i s a s o - c a l l e d " o p e n -a n d -s h u t" case*

A c lie n t is

p ro n e t o g iv e a c o lo re d s ta te m e n t o f f a c t s t o h i s a t t o r n e y , i t b e in g human n a tu r e t o m in im ize t h e known a d v a n ta g e s o f t h e o p p o sin g l i t i g a n t i n t h e c a se and t o o v* e r-e m p h a siz e h i s own c a s e .

An a t t o r n e y who th u s had b een m is le d by h i s c l i e n t

may have f u l l i n t e n t i o n s o f h o ld in g o u t f o r a t r i a l u n t i l he g e t s a v iew o f t h e o t h e r s i d e o f t h e c a se a t a p r e - t r i a l c o n fe re n c e and th e n he may have a change o f h e a r t* Som etim es a d e fe n d a n t i s w i l l i n g t o s e t t l e b u t c a n n o t p ay th e e n t i r e amount i n c a s h .

I f th e p l a i n t i f f s e c u re s a

Judgment and e x e c u tio n t h e r e o n , i t may p u t t h e d e fe n d a n t o u t o f b u s in e s s *

I n su ch a c a se a c o n se n t Judgment may be e n t e r ­

e d , b a s e d u p onaan ag reem en t an d s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t i t s h a l l be s a t i s f i e d b y a s e r i e s o f i n s t a l lm e n t paym ents*

The c a s e i s

th e n r e t a i n e d on t h e p r e - t r i a l d o c k e t p e n d in g t h e c o m p le tio n o f su ch p a y m e n ts.

T h is p r a c t i c e i s more e l a s t i c th a n t h a t

p ro v id e d f o r b y s t a t u t e s w h ich a u t h o r i z e t h e paym ent o f money Judgm ents b y i n s t a l l m e n t s .

A riz o n a , how ever, d o es n o t h av e

su c h an I n s ta iln e n t- J u d g m e n t s t a t u t e ; - th e r e f o r e , u n d e r t h e new r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e , many f i n a n c i a l l y h a r d - p r e s s e d d e fe n d ­ a n t s s h o u ld f i n d r e l i e f i n p a y in g o f f a Judgment by i n s t a l l ­ m ents* R e p ly in g t o some o f t h e o b j e c t o r s and s k e p t i c s , Judge

204

H al W. Adams a s k s them why t h e p r e - t r i a l sy ste m s h o u ld n o t w ork when i t i s a p p ly in g t o c o u r t p ro c e d u re some o f th e common s e n s e p r a c t i c e so s u c c e s s f u l l y u se d s c a r e s o f tim e s e a c h d ay h y men i n t h e s e t tl e m e n t o f t h e i r b u s in e s s p ro b le m s. He s a y s : Of c o u r s e , t h i s sy ste m w ould n o t a p p e a l t o o u r b r e t h r e n who a r e t e c h n i c a l m inded and who a r e e a s i l y ♦em barrassed and d e l a y e d ,* n o r t o th o s e p l a i n t i f f s who o n ly have a *g ro w l case* t o s t a r t w ith n o r t o th o s e d e f e n d a n ts who o n ly have a *g o p h er h o le * d e­ fe n s e a g a i n s t a good c a u se o f a c t i o n . . . . th e y C the c o u r t sJH w ere n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t o p ro v id e a n a re n a f o r a show o f l e g a l i s t i c pantom ime o r p r o c e d u r a l shadow b o x in g , n o r a s a s ta g e on w hich a d e x tr o u s t e c h n o l o g i s t c o u ld p r e s e n t an e x h i b i t i o n o f lin g u a c io u s le g e rd e m a in . The Oklahoma suprem e c o u r t h a s r e c e n t l y J u d i c i a l l y d e c la r e d , ♦That a t e c h n i c a l i t y i s a m icrobe w hich g e t s i n t o t h e p ro c e d u re o f th e law and g iv e s j u s t i c e t h e b l i n d s t a g g e r s .* T here i s & -lo t more t r u t h th a n p o e t r y i n t h a t d e c l a r a t i o n . U nder t h e t y p i c a l , b u t w o rn -o u t p ro c e d u re o f to d a y , a la w s u it i s s t a r t e d by f i l i n g t h e c o m p la in t.

T h is i s fo llo w ­

ed b y a s e r i e s o f h e a r in g s and arg u m en ts on ♦♦law -and-m otion" d ay s i n c o u r t w ith t h e i r a t t e n d a n t f u s i l l a d e o f d e m u rre rs , m o tio n s , b r i e f s , amended p l e a d i n g s , o r d e r s , e t c .

A f te r

d r a g g in g a lo n g f o r m onths and m onths, and som etim es f o r y e a r s , t h e c a se f i n a l l y i s wa t i s s u e . n

In m ost c a s e s , o n e, o r

p e rh a p s tw o, p r e - t r i a l c o n fe re n c e s would be s u f f i c i e n t tm r t o d e f in e t h e i s s u e s i n t h e c a se and t h a t would e l im in a t e a l l

15 H al W; Adams, o p . c i t . , p . 1 6 5 .

205

t h i s "w in d in g aro u n d o u r elbow t o g e t t o o u r n o s e ,n s a y s 14 Judge Adams* An ag reem en t o f s e ttl e m e n t re a c h e d a t th e p r e - t r i a l s t a g e i s a f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e case*

The Judge e n t e r s

a c o n s e n t Judgment b a se d upon su ch a g re e d s e t t l e m e n t ♦

14 L oc. c i t

TRIAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE The scope o f t h i s s tu d y o f t r i a l p r a c t i c e in c lu d e s th e p ro c e d u re from th e tim e th e judge t a k e s h i s p la c e upon th e b en ch and c a l l s a c a s e f o r t r i a l t o t h e f i n a l judgm ent o r )

d e c re e i n th e p a r t i c u l a r case*

No a tte m p t i s made t o com pre­

hend w ith in t h i s s tu d y a l l p h a s e s o f t r i a l p r a c t i c e and p r o ­ ce d u re In v o lv e d in a t r i a l * h u t m e re ly th o s e p h a s e s w h e re in t h e o ld d e f e c t s have b een m ost o b v io u s and th e p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r im provem ent have b ee n t h e g r e a t e s t * S in c e th e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s , a s w e ll a s th e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f e v e ry s t a t e , g u a r a n te e s t h e r i g h t o f t r i a l b y j u r y In c r im i n a l e a s e s and In c e r t a i n c l a s s e s o f c i y i l c a s e s , t h e f i r s t c o n s id e r a tio n I s "What a r e t h e p ro p e r f u n c ti o n and th e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e judge i n a ju r y t r i a l ? " W ith r e s p e c t t o f i x i n g th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s e e in g t h a t t h e j u r y I s I n s t r u c t e d p r o p e r ly and c o m p le te ly on a l l " V i t a l i s s u e s , " th e s t a t e s d iv id e th e m s e lv e s i n t o two g ro u p s : ( 1 ) th o s e s t a t e s w hich p la c e th e f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y upon th e ju d g e ; and ( 2 ) th o s e s t a t e s (and th e f e d e r a l c o u r ts ) w hich p la c e t h e f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y upon c o u n se l* In th e m a tte r o f when th e i n s t r u c t i o n s sh o u ld be g iv e n d u rin g t h e t r i a l p r o c e d u r e , t h e r e a r e : ( 1 ) th o s e s t a t e s (and th e f e d e r a l c o u r ts ) i n w hich th e judge i n s t r u c t s th e j u r y

207

a f t e r th e arg u m en ts o f c o u n s e l; and ( 2 } th o s e s t a t e s i n w hich t h e Judge i n s t r u c t s t h e J u ry b e f o r e th e a rg u m e n ts. S e c tio n 3809 o f t h e R ev ised Code o f A rizo n a (1 9 2 8 ), w hich h a s b een a b ro g a te d by th e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o c e d u r e , p r o v id e d : C h arg in g th e J u r y . A f t e r th e e v id e n c e i s c lo s e d and b e f o r e j t h e arg u m en ts t h e c o u rt s h a l l ch arg e th e J u ry . The Supreme C ourt o f A riz o n a h a s h e ld t h a t t h i s s e c t i o n made i t t h e d u ty o f th e c o u r t t o ch arg e t h e J u ry on a l l " v i t a l i s s u e s , " a lth o u g h n e i t h e r p a r t y made a r e q u e s t f o r su c h i n s t r u c t i o n . 2

I t w i l l be n o te d t h a t t h i s p la c e d th e f u l l

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on th e Ju d g e•

In i t s o p in io n on th e m eaning

o f t h e word " s h a l l " i n t h i s s e c t i o n o f th e co d e, i n t h e c a se o f S o u th w est C o tto n Company v . Ryan, t h e c o u r t h e ld : I t w i l l be o b se rv e d t h a t p a ra g ra p h 514 [The t e x t o f p a r a g r a p h 514 o f t h e 1913 code i s i d e n t i c a l w ith S e c tio n 3809 o f t h e 1928 code q u o ted a b o v e j s a y s t h a t fth e c o u r t s h a l l ch a rg e t h e J u r y . * The word f s h a l l , * a s h e re used p l a c e s t h i s d i t y on th e c o u r t, and i t i s n o t c o n d itio n e d upon a r e q u e s t from e i t h e r p a r t t o th e l i t i g a t i o n . I t is a s t e p i n a J u ry t r i a l w hich t h e c o u r t must p e rfo rm w h e th e r a id e d by th e a t t o r n e y s o r n o t . 3 I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , th e c o u rt f a i l e d t o ch a rg e t h e J u ry on how t o m easure th e amount o f dam ages—t h a t i s , t h e e le m e n ts t h a t e n t e r i n t o d e te rm in in g th e am ount. 1

2

1 9 2 1 ).

" I t was

R e v ise d Code o f A riz o n a , 1928, S e c tio n 3809. S o u th w est C o tto n Company v . Ryan, 199 P . 124 (A riz o n a ,

12 Ib l'd . , a t p . 1 3 0 [ l 3 j

.

208

a s th o u g h a *r o v in g commission* had b een is s u e d t o i t (jfche ju ry ] , " t h e c o u r t s a i d , " to e s t a b l i s h i t s own s ta n d a r d o f damages i n s t e a d o f f o llo w in g th o s e f ix e d by th e law i t s e l f * "

4

R i le 51 o f t h e new A riz o n a R u le s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re , w hich i s I d e n t i c a l w ith r u l e 51 o f th e f e d e r a l r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e , p r o v id e s in p a r t : . . . th e c o u r t s h a l l i n s t r u c t th e j u r y a f t e r th e arg u m en ts a r e c o m p le te d . Ho p a r t y may a s s ig n a s e r r o r t h e g iv in g o r t h e f a i l u r e t o g iv e an i n s t r u c t i o n u n le s s he o b j e c t s t h e r e t o b e f o r e t h e j u r y r e t i r e s t o c o n s id e r i t s v e r d i c t , s t a t i n g d i s t i n c t l y t h e m a tte r t o w hich he o b j e c t s and t h e g ro u n d s o f h i s o b j e c t i o n . . . . T h is h a s b ro u g h t ab o u t two im p o rta n t changes in c i v i l p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re i n A riz o n a .

F i r s t , i t h a s changed th e

tim e f o r g iv in g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s from " b e fo re th e arg u m e n ts" c o f c o u n s e l, a s p ro v id e d i n S e c tio n 3809 o f t h e 1928 Code, t o a f t e r t h e arg u m en ts a r e co m p leted ; se c o n d , i t h as s h i f t e d t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e ch a rg e t o t h e j u r y on a l l " v i t a l i s s u e s " from th e c o u r t t o c o u n s e l i n th e case.

T h is h a s made t h e p ro c e e d in g s i n th e s t a t e c o u r ts o f

A riz o n a i d e n t i c a l w ith th e f e d e r a l c o u r ts i n t h i s r e s p e c t . W ith t h e judge th u s r e l i e v e d o f t h a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , th e dang­ e r o f e n t r u s t i n g a c a se t o an u n s k i l l e d law y e r i s i n c r e a s e d ^ S o u th w est C o tto n Company v . R yan, lo o , c l t . 5

R ule 51, R u les o f c i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r th e D i s t r i c t C o u rts o f t h e U n ite d S t a t e s (W ash in g to n : U n ite d S t a t e s Government P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , 1 9 3 8 ), p . 64, and th e same in R ule 51, R u le s o f C if ril P ro c e d u re f o r ""the s u p e r i o r C o u rts o f A riz o n a (P h o e n ix : S t a t e B ar o f A riz o n a , 1 9 4 6 ), p p . 7 6 -7 7 . 6b S up ra, p . 1 9 9 .

£09

and t h e h a z a rd o f a laym an h a n d lin g h i s own c a se b e f o re t h e c o u r t — i n p r o p r i a p e r s o n a —becomes in e s tim a b ly g r e a te r * The S t a t e B ar i n A riz o n a , i n 1934, recommended t h a t th e A riz o n a Code be amended t o a f f e c t t h e s e two changes w hich s in c e have

b een made by t h e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re *

m aking i t s

re co m m en d atio n s, t h e s t a t e b a r p o in te d o u t th e

In

d e f e c t o f t h e o ld law u n d e r th e code w hich p e r m itte d an a t t o r ­ ney to s i t

s i l e n t and a llo w t h e c o u r t t o f a i l t o c o v e r t h e

c a s e a d e q u a te ly i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s w ith o u t s u g g e s tin g t h a t a n y th in g h as b een o m itte d In t h e hope t h a t th e r e b y he would 7 hav e wan ace i n t h e h o le " i f Judgm ent w ent a g a in s t him . The b a r a s s o c i a t i o n * s recom m endation c o n tin u e d : b Such a p r a c t i c e sh o u ld n o t be t o l e r a t e d * C ounsel a r e f a r b e t t e r aw are th a n th e t r i a l ju d g e a s t o what i n s t r u c t i o n s t h e y deem n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o rt t h e i r t h e o r y o f t h e c a s e . I f th e y do n o t c a l l t h e m a tte r t o h i s a t t e n t i o n t h e y sh o u ld n o t be p e r m itte d t o ta k e a d v a n ta g e o f an u n i n t e n t i o n a l o m issio n o f an i n s t r u c ­ t i o n w hich w ould o th e rw is e have b een g iv e n had i t b een a s k e d . 8 Tinder t h e o ld p r a c t i c e , when c o u n s e l made i t s argum ent t o t h e j u r y a f t e r i t h ad r e c e iv e d i n s t r u c t i o n s from th e c o u r t, f r e q u e n t l y t h e a rg u m e n ts o f c o u n s e l co n fu se d t h e m inds o f th e j u r o r s a s t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s w hich t h e c o u r t a l r e a d y had 7 F i r s t R e p o r t, Com m ittee on P r o c e d u r a l Reform o f th e S t a t e B ar o f i n z o n a and t h e A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il, J n l f £0, 1934, p . 9 . XjOC *

G it*

g iv e n , and som etim es d u rin g t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n o f th e j u r y a q u e s tio n would a r i s e on w hich t h e ju r y w anted f u r t h e r i n ­ s t r u c t i o n s t o c l a r i f y t h e p o i n t ; how ever, S e c tio n 3811 o f "kke R e v ise d Code Of A riz o n a c o n ta in e d th e fo llo w in g p r o h i ­ b itio n : No f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s s h a l l be g iv e n t o th e j u r y a f t e r t h e argum ent b e g in s . The ch a rg e o f th e c o u r t and a l l i n s t r u c t i o n s a sh e d by e i t h e r p a r t y s h a l l be f i l e d w ith t h e c l e r h and c o n s t i t u t e a p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d . The ch a rg e g iv e n by t h e c o u r t may be u se d by t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e argum ent t o th e j u r y . 9 i

The l a s t s e n te n c e o f t h e p re c e d in g s e c t i o n o f th e Code seems t o i n d i c a t e t h e r e a s o n f o r h a v in g th e i n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e c o u r t p re c e d e th e arg u m en ts o f c o u n s e l—t h a t i s , t h a t th e i n s t r u c t i o n s m ight be u se d in t h e a rg u m e n ts.

T h a t a d v a n ta g e ,

h ow ever, d id n o t com pensate f o r th e g r e a t d is a d v a n ta g e o f th e c o u r t b e in g p r o h i b i t e d from g iv in g th e ju r y f u r t h e r i n s t r u c / t i o n s when i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s r e v e a le d t h a t i t had n o t b een s u f f i c i e n t l y in fo rm e d . m ent a s t o

The j u r o r s may have b e e n in d i s a g r e e ­

some p a r t s o f t h e e v id e n c e , o r t h e y may n o t have

been s u f f ic ie n tly in s tr u c te d u la r case,

a s t o p o i n t s o f la w i n t h e p a r t i c

b u t t h e c o u r t was u n a b le t o do a n y th in g f u r t h e r t o

a s s i s t t h e j u r y e x c e p t t o have th e j u r o r s

r e tu r n e d i n t o c o u r t

and have t h e c o u rt r e p o r t e r re a d th e i n s t r u c t i o n s w hich p r e ­ v i o u s l y had b een g iv e n b y t h e c o u r t. 9

I f th e s e in s tr u c tio n s

R ev ised Code o f A riz o n a , 1928, S e c tio n 3811.

211

had b een in a d e q u a te , t h e mere r e - r e a d i n g o f them d id n o t h e lp t o s o lv e t h e problem * The new r h l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re a r e s i l e n t on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e i s no p r o ­ h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t t h e c o u r t g iv in g f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s t o th e J u r y a t any tim e b e f o r e i t s v e r d i c t . I n C a l i f o r n i a t h e code c l e a r l y p ro v id e s f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u r y a f t e r d e l i b e r a t i o n s have begun i f th e ju ro rs re q u e s t i t ,

T h is s e c t i o n r e a d s r

A f t e r t h e j u r y have r e t i r e d f o r d e l i b e r a t i o n , i f t h e r e be a d is a g re e m e n t b etw een them a s t o an y p a r t o f t h e te s tim o n y , o r i f t h e y d e s i r e t o be in fo rm ed o f an y p o in t o f la w a r i s i n g i n th e c a u se , th e y may r e q u i r e t h e o f f i c e r t o co n d u c t them i n t o c o u r t . Upon t h e i r b e in g b ro u g h t i n t o c o u r t , t h e in f o r m a tio n r e q u ir e d m ust b e g iv e n i n t h e p re s e n c e o f , o r a f t e r n o t i c e t o , th e p a r t i e s o r c o u n s e l. 1 0 A p r o v i s i o n su ch a s t h i s C a l i f o r n i a Code s e c t i o n , s h o u ld be added t o th e new r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re f o r b o th th e f e d e r a l and t h e s t a t e c o u rts * The Supreme C ourt o f A riz o n a a l s o h as p ro m u lg a te d new r u l e s o f c r im in a l p r o c e d u r e .

T hese r u l e s became e f f e c t i v e

A p r i l J., 1940, j u s t t h r e e m onths a f t e r t h e r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re w ent i n t o e f f e c t .

W ith r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c o u r t

c h a rg in g o r i n s t r u c t i n g th e j u r y i n c r im in a l t r i a l s , t h e new r u l e s a r e somewhat d i f f e r e n t from th e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re .

The fo llo w in g a r e t h e p e r t i n e n t s e c ti o n s o f t h e

new r u l e s o f c r im in a l p r o c e d u r e : 10

The Code o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re o f th e S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a , 195*?, S e c tio n 614.

212

C h ap ter 1 7 , Sec* 322* C harge o f C ourt t o j u r y , ( 1 ) The c o u r t s h a l l i n s t r u c t tlxe J u r y r e g a r d in g th e law a p p lic a b le to th e f a c ts o f th e c a u se 9 (2} The c h a rg e o f t h e c o u r t may be e i t h e r o r a l o r w r i t t e n , b u t i f o r a l i t s h a l l be ta k e n by a c o u r t r e p o r t e r * C h a p te r 1 8 , Sec* 323. R e tire m e n t o f j u r o r s . A f te r h e a r in g t h e c h a rg e o f t h e c o u r t th e “ 7 u r o r s s h a l l r e t i r e t o th e p la c e ,p r o v id e d f o r them and c o n s id e r t h e i r v e r ­ d ic t. . . . & As com pared w ith t h e p r o v is io n s in th e r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u r e , t h e r u l e s f o r c r im in a l p ro c e d u re om it t h a t p a r t w hich makes i t n e c e s s a r y f o r c o u n s e l t o o b je c t t o th e g iv in g o f an e rro n e o u s i n s t r u c t i o n o r t h e o m ittin g o f an e s s e n t i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a s a c o n d itio n p re c e d e n t t o a s s ig n in g t h a t e r r o r o r © m ission a s e r r o r on a p p e a l*

In o th e r w d rd s, th e f u l l

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o c o m p le te ly and p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y s t i l l r e s t s upon t h e t r i a l judge i n c r im in a l p ro c e d u re as i t alw ay s had in t h e p a s t i n b o th c i v i l and c r im i n a l c a s e s , b u t In c i v i l p ro c e d u re t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y h a s been s h i f t e d from t h e c o u rt t o c o u n s e l b y t h e new r u le s * 12 A n o th e r d i s t i n c t i o n betw een t h e c i v i l and t h e crim ­ i n a l r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re i s t h a t i n th e l a t t e r , S e c io n 322 (2} p r o v id e s t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n *may be e i t h e r o r a l o r w r i t t e n . n The r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re a r e s i l e n t on t h i s p o i n t .

A lso ,

w h ile t h e r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re p ro v id e t h a t nth e c o u rt

Code o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re , S t a t e o f A riz o n a , (P h o e n ix : S t a t e B ar o f A riz o n a , JLy4U) p , 6 1 . 12

S u p ra , p p . 1 9 9 -2 0 0 *

213

s h a ll in s tr u c t the Jury a fte r th e arguments c o m p le te d ,"

13

o f counsel

are

t h e r e i s no s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n i n t h e r u l e s o f

r

c r im i n a l p r o c e d u r e .

However, th e same seq u e n ce o f p ro c e d u re

i s im p lie d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c . 325 above w hich s t a t e t h a t J u r o r s s h a l l r e t i r e f o r d e l i b e r a t i o n “a f t e r h e a r in g th e c h a rg e o f th e c o u r t ; ” t h e r e f o r e , s in c e th e c h a rg e o f t h e c o u r t t o t h e J u ry I s m e n tio n e d a s t h e l a s t s t e p o f p ro c e d u re b e f o r e t h e J u ry r e t i r e s f o r d e l i b e r a t i o n , t h a t r u l e b y i n f e r ­ ence e x c lu d e s arg u m en ts o f c o u n s e l from b e in g t h e l a s t s t e p . The n e x t im p o rta n t c o n s i d e r a tio n w ith r e s p e c t t o th e Jud g e* s f u n c ti o n i n a J u ry t r i a l i s t h e l a t i t u d e g iv e n t o t h e Judge and t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p la c e d upon him i n commenting t o t h e J u ry on t h e e v id e n c e . s i l e n t on t h i s p o i n t .

The new r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re a r e

T h ere a r e two c o n c e p ts o f t h e Judge*s

f u n c ti o n i n t h i s m a t t e r : ( 1 ) t h e o ld common law co n c ep t w hich p e r m its th e Judge t o a d v is e th e J u ry on t h e f a c t s b y sum m arizing and a n a ly z in g t h e e v id e n c e and commenting upon t h e w e ig h t and c r e d i b i l i t y o f a l l o r an y p a r t o f i t , so lo n g a s he le a v e s t h e f i n a l d e c is i o n on q u e s tio n s o f f a c t t o t h e J u ry ; and (2 ) t h e l a t e r co n c ep t t h a t t h e Judge i s n o t t o be t r u s t e d t o a d v is e t h e J u ry b y comm enting on th e e v id e n c e — t h a t he i s , i n e f f e c t m e re ly an “u m p ire* o f th e c o u r t p r o c e e d in g s .

The

fo rm e r c o n c e p t i s a p p l i e d i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r ts and i n a few s t a t e c o u r t s ; t h e l a t t e r c o n c e p t p r e v a i l s i n m ost s t a t e c o u r ts , in c lu d in g A riz o n a .

214

Under th e d e c isio n s o f the Supreme Court o f th e United S ta te s in terp retin g the Federal C o n stitu tio n , the function and the au th ority o f th e Judges always have been in accordance w ith the common law concept* ern P a c ific Railroad Company,

In the case ©f Herron v. South14

the Court said : "In a t r i a l

by Jury in a fed era l court, the Judge i s not a mere moderator, but i s th e governor o f the t r i a l * . . * " and again in Capi­ t a l Traction Company v . Huff, th e Court held: T r ia l by Jury * . . Is a t r i a l by a Jury o f 12 men in the presence and under the superintendence o f a Judge empowered t o in s tr u c t them on the law and t o ad vise them on the f a c t s , and (except on a c q u itta l o f a crim inal charge) to s e t a sid e th e ir v erd ict i f . i n h is opinion i t i s again st the law or the evidence# 15 T

As t o the lim ita tio n s o f the Judge in commenting on the evidence, in Quercia r . United S ta te s , the court sa id : This p r iv ile g e o f the Judge to comment on f a c ts has i t s lim ita tio n s* His d is c r e tio n i s not arb itrary and uncontrolled* . * . In commenting upon testim ony he may not assume the r o le o f a w itn e ss. He may analyze and d is s e c t th e evidence, but he may not e ith e r d is to r t I t or add to i t . The Jury by I t s very nature and p o s itio n i s uninformed as to the law and unaccustomed t o weighing the probative fo rce o f testim on y.

In commenting upon the evidence to the

Jury, i t must be assumed th a t counsel *s ap p raisal of th e 14 Herron v . Southern P a c ific Railroad Company, 283 U. S. 91. 1*5 16

C apital Traction Company v. Huff, 174 U. S. 1* Quercia v* United S ta te s , 289 U* S. 466.

215

evidence i s colored by th e in te r e s ts o f h is c l ie n t .

The only

experienced lawyer in the t r i a l who i s p erso n a lly d is in te r ­ ested in th e outcome o f th e case i s the judge.

He i s the

only p a rticip a n t in the jury t r i a l who i s q u a lifie d , by knowl­ edge and experience and la ck o f personal in t e r e s t , t o in str u c t th e jury as t o the law and to advise them as t o the probative fo rce of th e evidence and the r e la t iv e s ig n ific a n c e o f the p arts o f the testim ony as bearing on th e p a r tic u la r is s u e s made by the p leadings and submitted to the jury fo r i t s d ecision *

In p r a c tic a lly every ju r is d ic tio n the power Is

given to the judge to s e t asid e the v e r d ic t o f a jury I f , in h is ©pinion, I t does not conform w ith the law and th e e v i­ dence in the p a r tic u la r ca se, and he may en ter a "judgment non obstante v ered icto * —th a t i s , a judgment th a t does conform t o th e law and evidence notw ithstanding a contrary v erd ict by the jury.

This was esta b lish ed as one o f the p rerogatives o f

Arizona Courts by th e Supreme Court *s d ecisio n in Fornara v . 17 . r Wolpe. The same prerogative has been incoporated in the new ru le s o f procedure of both the fe d e r a l and Arizona co u rts.

18

Another way in which a judge may d efea t the v erd ict o f 17 Fornara V. Wolpe, 26 Arizona 383; 226 P. 203. 18

,

Rule 50?(b }, Rules o f C iv il Procedure for the d is ­ t r i c t Courts o f the United- St a t e s , op. c i t . , pp. 6 3 -6 4 , and the same In Rule 50 (b }, Rules a fr C iv il Procedure fo r th e Superior Courts o f Arizona, op. c i t . , p. 76.

316

the Jury, at le a s t tem porarily, i s by granting a new t r i a l . Xt i s most in c o n siste n t to grant the t r i a l Judge the u ltim ate power to d efeat th e Jury’s verd ict by e ith e r a Judgment non obstante v ered icto or by granting a new t r i a l , and then deny him the power to advise the Jury and aid them in analyzing the testim ony presented to them in the p a rticu la r ca se.

Why

shouldn’t the Jury be given the b e n e fit of the Judge’s ex­ p erience in analyzing the testim ony? The conditions which gave r is e t o p roh ib itin g the Judge from commenting on the evidence t o the Jury no longer e x is t * Xn American C olonial days there was a d is tr u s t of a rb itra ry and ab solu te power as i t was exem plified in some C olonial Judges who received th e ir appointment from an absolute “monarch. Since th ose conditions long ago have ceased to e x i s t , th ere i s no reason to s a c r ific e e f f ic ie n c y in the adm inistration o f J u stice to a popular fe e lin g which tr a c e s i t s o rig in to very d iffe r e n t p o l i t i c a l co n d itio n s.

The C a lifo rn ia code perm its

the Judge to comment on the testim ony provided he informs the Jury th at they are the ex clu siv e Judges o f a l l questions o f 19 fa ct* In Arizona that p r iv ile g e i s denied to the fu d ges. Yolumes could be w ritten regarding the personal quali*f ic a t io n s , such as in t e llig e n c e , education, e t c . , th at should 19

The Code of g ifr il Procedure o f the S tate of C ali­ fo rn ia , 1937, S ection 608.

be required for Jury se r v ic e and about the advantages and disadvantages of women serving on the jury*

In Arizona i t

w i l l require a c o n s titu tio n a l amendment to q u a lify women for jury serv ice*

An example o f what might be considered a m ini­

mum in in t e lle c t u a l requirements for jury serv ic e was rev ea ls ed in the t r i a l o f John Thomas Scopes*

He was tr ie d in July,

1925, at Dayton, Rhea County, Tennessee fo r having v io la ted the a n ti-e v o lu tio n s ta tu te o f th at State*

This -law had been

enacted by th e Tennessee L egislatu re only about four months p reviou s.

The sta tu te made I t unlawful for any teacher "to

teach the theory th at d en ies the story of the divine creation of mah as taught in the B ib le, and to teach instead th at man has descended from a lower order o f animals*"

20

This case

became famous by the p a r tic ip a tio n of William Jennings Bryan in the prosecution and of Clarence Darrow and Dudley F ield Malone for the d efen se.

The th ird p rosp ective juror to be

examined on h is voire d ire was Jim R ile y , a farmer.

Part of

th e in terrogation by Mr. Darrow o f the defense proceeded as fo llo w s : Q* Do you know anything about evolution? A* No, not p a r tic u la r ly . Rver read anything he {jMr. Bryan] said about it ?

20

Bdward Hale B ie r sta d t, Curious T r ia ls & Criminal Gases (Garden C ity, New York: Garden C ity £ubTisHing Company, Incorporat ed, 1928J, p* 325*

218

A. No, s ir ; I can 't read* Q. Well, yon are fortunate* f a ir juror, can't you? A. Yes, sir *

Ton can be a p e r fe c tly

21

"And so Jim R iley passed with fly in g c o lo rs," rep orts Edward Hale B ie rsta d t, who adds, "The proseckution took the trouble to examine very few p rosp ective ju rors, knowing, as i t did, th at nine out o f every ten men in Rhea County could be tru sted to sid e again st modernism from dawn to su n set."

22

Another c r i t i c ism of our jury system which i s heard freq u en tly i s the expense of jury t r ia ls *

Some idea of the

r e la t iv e c o sts of. jury and non-jury t r i a l s can be had from the testim ony o f Mr. Emory Buckner before the n a tio n a l Com­ m ission on law Observance and Enforcement.

Mr. Buchner

testim ony was w ith referen ce t o the prosecution o f p roh ib i­ tio n cases in the Federal D is t r ic t Court fo r th e Southern D is tr ic t of Hew York, and h is estim ate was th a t the cost r a tio o f jury to non-jury t r i a l s was th ree-an d -on e-h alf to one.

To quote from the o f f i c i a l records o f the Commission: Mr* Buckner estim ated th at the cost o f adequate p rosecu tion o f the e n tir e S tate of Hew York, i f jury t r i a l s were a b olish ed , would be roughly § 2 0 ,000,000. I f , however, I t were n ecessary to award jury t r i a l s fo r a l l e a se s, he estim ated th at the t o t a l cost of enforcement would be $70,000,000. ^

21 Ib id . , p. 330. 22 I b id ., pp. 329 and 331. 25 O ff ic ia l Records Of The N ational Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (5 Vol. Washington: Government P rin tin g O ffic e , 1931), Vol. V, p . 225.

£19

Even though BBr. Buckner*s estim ates were based on the co sts o f jury t r i a l s in crim inal c a se s, i t i s reasonable t o assume th a t there would be very l i t t l e , i f any, d ifferen ce in the r e la t iv e cost of jury and non-jury t r i a l s in c i v i l c a se s. One o f the strong arguments in favor o f the jury system i s that i t provides f l e x i b i l i t y , thereby r e s u ltin g in moral ju s tic e in some cases where such a r e s u lt would be un­ obtainable by purely le g a l ju stic e *

Sometimes th e jury

serves as a shock absorber again st the j o lt of a s t r i c t l y l e g a l i s t i c cou rt.

Purely le g a l r u le s are in f le x ib le , u su a lly ,

and s t r i c t a p p lica tio n often r e s u lts in harshness and in ju s­ tic e #

'Frequently i t i s the r e fu s a l o f a group o f average

c itiz e n s t o apply the s t r i c t le g a l ru le to a s itu a tio n when th a t would produce an undesirable r e s u lt and unnecessary hard­ ship th a t saves fa ce fo r the court and. r e s u lts in more p erfect j u s t ic e than i s obtainable from our fix e d laws and procedure. Few persons would a b o lish th e jury e n t ir e ly , but n early every­ one i s agreed th a t our jury system needs overhauling.

R. W.

R iis says: I would not la y v io le n t hands on the jury system, but I would suggest th a t i t should be reconstructed so t h a t .i t map again be regarded w ith respect as a bulwark o f c i v i l lib e r t y and n ot, as at p resen t, as an i n e f f i ­ c ie n t c iv ic n u isa n ce.24 R. W. R iis , "The Jury nuisance." XXXIX (February, 19381, 6 5 .-

Readerfs D ig e s t,

220

This v ir tu e o f f l e x i b i l i t y which i s derived from our Jury system a lso has i t s corresponding s in .

A Jury i s some­

tim es carried away by emotions induced by the clevern ess o f th e attorn eys; thfts, the v ir tu e o f f l e x i b i l i t y i s debased by the sin o f u nstable emotions and th e consequence i s in ju s tic e On t h is point Francis Bellamy g iv e s what he c a lls an ab solu te l y necessary warning to Jurors; You should remember f i r s t that the lawyers are not the two d isp u tants between whom you are d ecid in g. Lawyers are not hired to secure J u stice but to plead s p e c ia l c a se s, to present one sid e o f a th in g and d is c r e d it th e other s i d e .25 The term, "sympathy v e r d ic t," i s a common expression around a court room.

According to Bellamy, one of the common

e s t s t o r ie s current among lawyers i s th a t o f some poor, blun­ dering attorn ey who made such a wretched showing again st a d istin g u ish ed opponent th a t the Jury gave him a v erd ict out of pure sympathy.^6 The mere ex iste n c e o f our Jury system has a wholesome in flu en ce on many people who are prone to look on courts and the law w ith d is t r u s t .

Their su sp icio n s are tempered some­

what by th e fa c t th a t th e people them selves have a strong voice in th e adm inistration o f J u stice as long as the Jury may in terv en e. 25 Francis Rufus Bellamy, "Gentlemen of th e Jury#" Readerfs D ig e s t. XTIW (February, 1934), 71. 26 Lo c #c i t .

220

J. A. C. Grant s ta te s th e Jury problem in the follow in g te r s e statem ent: A b o litio n C ot the Jury] being beyond the realm o f p r o b a b ility , the qu estion narrows down to th a t o f the improvement o f the Jury, which i s prlm arily_a problem o f improving the methods o f i t s s e le c tio n * 37 Halford Winsor su ggests f iv e plans o f m od ification or s u b s titu tio n fo r Jury t r i a l s from which we may choose: {1} t r i a l by Judges; (2) a Jury o f one Judge and two la y members; (3) a Jury composed e n t ir e ly o f exp erts; (4) complete combination o f Judges and Jurors; and (5) th e a sse sso r sy stern*

28

Under the f i r s t plan—t r i a l by Judges—i t i s proposed th a t i f a Jury t r i a l were demanded, th e p resid in g Judge could c a l l in two other judges and th e th ree Judges would d elib era te lik e a Jury and arrive at a m ajority d ecision*

There are many

advantages and disadvantages t o be seen on both sid e s o f t h is proposed plan* The second plan d if f e r s from the f i r s t only in th at two laymen h reb su bstitu ted fo r two o f th e th ree judges, th ese laymen to be se le c te d fo r t h e ir sp e c ia liz e d tr a in in g , exper­ 27 J.A.C.Grant, “Methods o f Jury S e le c t ion*. Notes on J u d ic ia l Organization and Procedure* Walter FI Dodd, e d ito r , in American f t o li t l e a l ScienceTSe view , 3QCIY (February, 1930), 117. 28

Mulford Winsor, D irecto r, “Grand and P e t it J u rie s in th e tlnited S ta te s .* L e g is la tiv e B r ie fs prepared by th e S ta te [^Arizona] L e g is la tiv e Bureau, Department of Library and A rchives, Phoenix, No. 4 , February 15, 1940, p. 3.

a si

ience* im p a r tia lity , etc,.

One of the advantages o f the second

plan over the f i r s t i s th a t in the second the court can he so organized th at seldom* I f ever, the same thffoee persons would s i t togeth er on more than one case. To preserve the jury p r a c t ic a lly in i t s present form, except th a t experts would be su b stitu te d fo r the jurors which now are s e le c te d a t random* i s th e th ir d p lan .

The judge:

would s t i l l p reside a t the t r i a l as at p resen t, but he would not p a r tic ip a te in the d e lib e r a tio n s with the experts as in plan number two*

Under t h is plan, i f a case involved d is ­

puted accounts, a jury could be se le c te d from a panel o f book­ keepers and accountants; I f i t were a contested divorce ac­ t io n , a jury o f persons w e ll versed in so c io lo g y and psychology should be b e tte r than one s e le c te d a t random#

With such spec­

ia liz a t io n in the jury* the number o f jurors should be reduced, at le a s t in c i v i l cases* to le s s than the customary twelve* Jn most ju r is d ic t io n s , a sm aller jury than tw elve i s perm iss­

ib le by consent o f cou nsel, but i t should be d iscretio n a ry w ith the cou rt. I t has been the experience o f the In vestigator* In Arizona* to see th e court and jury w restle w ith d eta iled and involved testimony* which extended over many days* some­ tim es weeks and even months* concerning complicated accounts. The determ ination o f th e resp ectiv e e q u itie s in such a case may require knowledge o f in t r ic a t e accounting procedure about

222

which th e Judge, and e s p e c ia lly th e Jurors, may have l i t t l e or no knowledge*

Under the Arizona Code, 29 the court may

appoint a referee "to t r y any or a l l o f th e issues'* in such a case, provided, however, th a t th e p a r tie s consent thereto* The p arty who has the advantage because of the involved nature o f the evidence in such a case, often the debtor, i s not l i k e l y to consent to a r e fe r e e , because he hopes t o gain an advantage oVer h is adversary, h is c r ed ito r, through the confusion li k e ly to a r is e in the minds o f the Jurors and the a p p lic a tio n o f the "burden-of-pr oof " and the "preponderanceof-th e-evid en ce" d octrin es about which the court i s bound to in str u c t them.

Instead o f lim itin g the co u rt's power t o ap­

p oin t a refer ee in cases in which the p a r tie s to the s u it consent, i t should be e n tir e ly d iscretio n a ry w ith the court t o r e fe r a case t o a competent refer ee whenever, in h is op in ion , the circum stances warrant i t .

Such a p rovision In

the r u le s of procedure would not only aid the cause of Jus­ t i c e , but help to expedite the court calendar by r e lie v in g I t from burdensome cases which consume so much o f th e co u rt's tim e.

I f e ith e r of the f iv e plans of m odification or s u b s ti­

tu tio n fo r our present form o f Jury t r i a l s suggested by 30 Mulford Winsor were adopted, th ere would be p rop ortion ately 29 30

Revised Code o f Arizona, 1928, S ection 387?* M u lfo r d W in s o r , l o c *

c it*

223

l e s s argument fo r g iv in g the Judge absolute freedom to appoint a referee whenever he deems i t to be in the in te r e s t o f Jus­ t i c e * R. W. R iis c a lls the proposed Jury o f experts a "Blue Ribbon" Jury; he says; X see no reason why we should not have s p e c ia lly s e le c te d , semi-permanent panels o f p e t it Jurors sim ila r t o the "Blue Ribbon" panels o f our Grand Juries# I f Judges and lawyers must be s p e c ia l is t s , train ed in th e ir work, why not Jurors? This would elim inateothe present cond ition in which Jurors must be as ignobant o f Jury work as p o ssib le* In the fourth plan mentioned by M ilford Winsor, the changes from our present Jury system are approached from a somewhat d iffe r e n t angle*

This p la n -co m p lete combination

o f Judges and Jurors—does not propose a change in the per­ sonnel o f the Jury but proposes th at th e Judge r e t ir e with th e Jury and p a r tic ip a te in the d e lib e r a tio n s with them on the same b a sis as the other Jurors, he to have on ly one v o te. This system has been used s u c c e s s fu lly in some C ontinental Buropean countries# The idea fo r Mr. Winsorfs f i f t h plan a lso comes from C ontinental Burope.

The a ssesso r system proposes a s t a f f

o f what might be c a lle d p r o fe ssio n a l ju rors.

Instead o f our

present method o f s e le c tin g jurors at random and d ism issin g them in a short tim e --ju s t about the time th ey begin to 31

R* W. R i i s , l o o , e i t .

224

accumulate a l i t t l e Jury experience—in t h is f i f t h plan th e ju ro rs, who are c a lle d a sse sso r s, are c a r e fu lly se le c te d and th ey serve continuously fo r a long period, in f a c t , in d e fi­ n ite ly .

This would change jury duty from i t s present sta tu s

o f being something In cid en tal in a man’s l i f e , and something which freq u en tly req u ires s a c r ific in g some of h is regular b u sin ess or p r o fe ssio n a l a c t i v i t i e s , to a p r o fe ssio n a l career. In the matter o f court procedure, there could be im­ provement In the examination o f jurors on th e ir v o ir d ire as a b a sis for the ex e r c ise of ch a llen g es, e ith e r ”fo r Cause" or peremptory.

I t i s not infrequent th at days and even

weeks o f valuable time are spent In examining prosp ective ju ro rs.

U sually, the more sen sa tio n a l the case, the longer

th e time devoted to s e le c tin g the jury.

I f newspaper r e ­

p orters are p resen t, the attorneys are l i k e l y to disregard the valuable time consumed In th e ir e ffo r ts to get newspaper p u b lic ity .

This Is true because to o exten sive la titu d e i s

allowed counsel in questioning th e ju rors.

This can be im­

proved by plaeind the I n i t i a l questioning o f jurors on th e ir y o lr d ire i n the hands o f the judge.

He could examine them

In d iv id u a lly or c o lle c t iv e ly in groups o f convenient s iz e , p refera b ly the la t t e r , on matters p ertain in g to th e ir general q u a lific a t io n s , orovided, of course, that counsel be permitted to supplement the judge’s examination w ith relevan t questions w ith in measurably r e s tr ic te d lim it s .

The judge should a c tiv e -

285

l y intervene i f necessary to elim in ate immaterial and umimportant in terro g a tio n o f p rosp ective ju rors.

The new r u le s o f

procedure* both fed era l and Arizona, provide: The court may permit the p a r tie s or th e ir attorn eys to conduct the examination o f p rosp ective jurors or may i t s e l f conduct the examination* in the la t t e r event, the court s h a ll permit the p a r tie s or th e ir attorneys to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as i t deems proper or s h a ll i t s e l f submit to th e pros­ p e c tiv e jurors such a d d itio n a l questions o f the p a r tie s or th e ir attorneys as i t deems p rop er.32 There i s one step in the order of procedure in a jury t r i a l o f a c i v i l case in Arizona which sometimes becomes lu d ic ro u s.

The Code provides th at "The p l a i n t i f f or h is

counsel s h a ll read h is complaint to the jury and make a 33 statem ent o f h is case." i t a l i c s not in the o r ig in a l

In

some ca ses, th e complaint i s a very long and te c h n ic a l plead­ ing and the reading o f i t t o the jury has the semblance of a voodoo in can tation ; n e v e r th e le ss, under the present law i t must be read to the jury.

That reading i s follow ed by an

attem pt on the part o f the attorn ey to exp lain , in simple language which the jury can understand, what the complaint i s about.

The law should be amended so th at counsel may e ith e r

32 —~ Rule 47 (a ), Rules o f C iv il Procedure for the D is t r ic t Courts o f the United S ta te s , op. e i t . , p . 61, and t h e same" in R u le“T 7 ~ T a ), R ule s"^ o 7 ^ C l^ iT p ro c e d u re f o r th e Superior Courts o f Arizona, op. c i t . , pp. 72 - 7 3 . ~ 33""

Revised Code o f Arizona, 1928, S ection 3807.

236

read the complaint or s ta te i t s meaning in language o f the ordinary layman.

I f th at were done, i t i s not li k e l y that

any attorn ey ever would read the complaint to the Jury again, A s t i l l b e tte r procedure would be to have the Judge o u tlin e th e case to the Jury rather than to have t h e attorn eys fo r th e resp ectiv e p a r tie s do i t as i s done under present pracmental t i c e . The Judge could give not only a more I n t e llig e n t /p ic ­ tu re of the matter In l i t i g a t i o n , but a lso a s t r i c t l y impar­ t i a l preview of the ca se.

The attorn eys, o f course, should

be perm itted t o supplement theeJudgefs o u tlin e with th e ir own statem ents o f how th ey Intend t o proceed to e s ta b lis h t h e ir sid e o f th e case. The Ju d icial adm inistration of J u stice could be v a s tly improved a ls o by a general overhauling of th e r u le s o f e v i­ dence,

"A court-room i s a w hirlpool o f em otional l i f e .

Its

occupants did not want to come,11 says Eleanor Bowland Wem34 b rid ge. Most people tr y to escape being w itn e sse s, and th at re tic e n c e s e r io u s ly in te r fe r e s w ith J u s tic e ,

Every lawyer

encounters s itu a tio n s In which he fin d s h im self handicapped because o f t h is fea r many people have o f the w itn ess stand. One o f th e g rea test advancements in the in te r e s t of ju stic e would be to r e s t r ic t the in terro g a tiv e form o f examining 34 Eleanor Rowland Wembr id g e , "Emotions in the Court­ room," The American Mercufcy, XVTI (May, 19291, 48.

227

w itn esses and to encourage the adoption of ru le s looking toward employment o f the continuous narrative form o f t e s t i s mony by w itn e s se s.

R eferring to the ru les o f evidence, John

H* Wigmore, Dean o f the law School o f Northwestern U n iv ersity , to ld the Cleveland Bar I n s t itu t e : The e s s e n t ia l purpose o f the Rules o f Evidence i s to help in g e ttin g at the tru th o f the fa c ts in l i t i g a t i o n . I t i s not to e s ta b lis h r u le s th at make the game more in te r e s tin g fo r the lawyer and more su c c e ssfu l fo r the c le v e r e s t . 35 In a b u sin ess conference, I f the in terro g a tiv e form o f exam ination, such as e x is t s in our co u rts, were used, nothing would be accomplished.

In speaking about the con­

tinuous n arrative form, Wigmore to ld the Cleveland Bar I n s titu te : The old-fash ion ed and law fu l orthodox method Is to put the w itn ess on the stand, have him t e l l Who he i s and how he came to be concerned, and then say, ’Now turn to th e jury and t e l l the jury what you know about t h is a f f a i r . f You would get through a t r i a l p r e tty quickly in th a t way. That i s p e r fe c tly orthodox. But in th ese days most t r i a l s , so fa r as I can se e , have come to look upon the only correct system as a s e r ie s o f q u estion s, follow ed by short answers, picking out each desired fa c t sep a ra tely and then g e ttin g an answer ex a c tly on th at and nothing e l s e . Of course, th at prolyongs ^prolongs) t r i a l s interm inably, and i t leads to a l l manner o f quib­ b lin g o b je c tio n s. I t i s a matter o f the crowd psychology and tr a d itio n , and i t w i l l take a long time to make any change, but I plead fo r a return to the orthodox system. . . . . . . . -I donft b e liv e QaelieveJ th at nine tim es out of ten i t makes the s lig h t e s t d ifferen ce i f once in

John H. “Wigmore, wProblems and Prospects in the Law o f Evidence." Cleveland Bar Journal (October.4, 1935}, 1 ,.

228

a w hile th e w itn ess wanders ©Ter in to _some hearsay statement or some irrelev a n t d e t a il. 6 Thomas H. Hearn, o f the Los Angeles Bar, describ es the sorry p lig h t o f th e w itn ess who i s honest and sin cere in want­ ing to t e l l the tru th but cannot do so when hampered by the o b jectio n s o f a contentious lawyer: I have seen , to o o ften , the d is tr e s s in g sp ecta cle of an honest, w ell-in ten d ed w itness attem pting to t e l l h is sto ry in the only form o f d iscou rse he knows, on ly to have i t pounded to b i t s , thrown out the window or rammed down h is throat by the d eft or v io le n t or .blundering ob jection s o f opposing counsel—yours tr u ly included. How dismayed th e w itn ess IS, and how h is tr u th fu l sto ry dwindles, when he fin d s th a t h is method o f communicating thought, which has always been good enough everwhere e l s e —ah home, in sch o o l, in church, a t the o f f i c e , in th e bank—i s but ch aff and ashes here in the hallowed court-room. And in every such instance X have been quite sure th a t the cause o f tru th has been i l l served by the p ro cess. And then I have seen p erju rers, s l y as r a ttle sn a k e s, p ie c in g out t h e ir w ell-reh earsed s t o r ie s in the te r se unexplained answers which the r u le s of evidence require— and in every such in stan ce I have known th at i f th at bird could on ly be made to t a lk , h is infamy would loom as the su n .557 F ortunately, th ere i s a trend—but a very slow one— to get away from t h is annoying system described by Mr. Hearn. This trend i s n o ticea b le in the dim inishing number o f rev ers­ a ls by th e a p p ella te cpurt on the grounds o f inadm issible 36 John H* Wigmore, "Continuous N arrative Favored in Jury T r ia ls ." Cleveland Bar Journal (November 1,, 19355,1. 37

-

.

Thomas H. Hearn, "I Object." The S tate Bar Journal o f C a lifo rn ia . YII (May, 1932), 103-104.

229

evidence having been admitted and a wider a p p lic a tio n o f the "harmless-error" th eory.

As the t r i a l judge i s given wider

la titu d e to comment on the evidence, so the n e c e s s ity dimin­ ish e s fo r the caution—which has become an ob session —again st harmful evidence g e ttin g t o the jury*

According t o the words

o f an eminent ju r is t : More and more we are lo s in g the slap-bang, roarin gb u ll t a c t ic s and are looking upon the t r i a l of a case in court for what i t r e a lly i s , as defined by the codes o f some o f the s t a t e s , a ju d ic ia l examination of the fa c ts * 38 A law su it should be a proceeding where the court and the jury and the lawyers are a l l working to get a t the fa c ts and to apply the law.

More p erfect co-operation to t h is end

would go fa r to resto re and strengthen p u b lic resp ect for the co u rts.

Mr. Hearn in d ic ts the system and not the lawyers for

the present s ta te o f a f f a i r s .

To quote him:

I , fo r one, am s ic k and fir e d o f yapping and being yapped a t in court; y et n eith er my opponent nor I can stop yapping u n t il something i s done about the ru le which says that i f evidence i s not o b jects to i t may be considered in support of the judgment.3® The ob stru ctive t a c t ic s o f some lawyers during the pro­ cedure o f taking testim ony in court seems to be predicated upon a d is t a s t e f u l, y et p erm issib le p r a c tic e , as expressed in

38

Judge Charles A. Lowe, quotation in Journal o f the American Judicature S o c ie ty , XVII (February, 1934), 1537 39 '

Thomas H. Hearn, quoted in unsigned a r t ic le , "Trying Law S u its Without Tapping." Jougnal o f th e American Judicata r e S o c ie ty , XIX (February, 1936), 1537

th e words of Abe I*. Gup, " If you can prevent your opponent from proving any e s s e n t ia l elem ent, you may e s ta b lis h your 40 ca se, because he cannot prove h is own*1* The new ru le s o f C iv il Procedure fo r the D is tr ic t Courts of the United S ta tes "represent our g r e a te st n ation al p r o fe ssio n a l e f f o r t to modernize le g a l procedure in order t o 41 promote e f f ic ie n c y o f J u d icia l adm in istration ," according to the report o f the Committee on T rial P ra c tice o f the American Bar A ssociation*

The committeefs report suggests

th a t • * . * the advanced standards o f le g a l procedure th erein formulated a fte r such thorough con sid eration by the Bar o f the United S ta tes may w e ll serve as standards for J u d icia l adm inistration In the courts o f the se v e r a l s t a t e s .42 Arizona has adopted the pattern o f the fed era l ru le s o f c i v i l procedure not only In substance, but a ls o in ar­ rangement.

The. .paragraphing, se c tio n in g , subdividing, and

numbering, even th e language, are id e n tic a l in both the fe d e r a l and th e Arizona ru le s except th a t in the le t t e r th ere had to be a few m od ification s t o s u it lo c a l con d ition s. This r e te n tio n o f id e n tity o f numbering and s e c tio n in g , as 40

Abe L. Cup, "Problems on IShtermg law P ra c tice." The Law Student, XT (May, 1938) , ? . 41 Annual Report o f the American Bar A sso cia tio n , V ol. 63 (1936J, p . 56S. 42

Loc.

c it.

231

w e ll as wording, makes p o ssib le the free and unhampered com­ mon use o f the fe d e r a l and Arizona case reports and the a u th o r itie s on q u estion s of procedure*

That b e n e fit alone

i s immeasurable. With the promulgation by th e Supreme Court o f Arizona o f the new Rules o f C iv il Procedure for the Superior Courts o f Arizona, which ru le s became e f f e c t iv e January 1 , 1940, and the promulgation o f th e new ru le s o f crim inal procedure which became e f f e c t iv e A p ril 1, 1940, Arizona has made i t s g rea test forward str id e in i t s J u d icia l h istory*

I t i s a reasonable

assumption th at w ith in a com paratively few years n ea rly every s t a t e in the Union w i l l adopt r u le s of procedure patterned a f te r the fed era l r u le s , as Arizona has done.

The eventual

outcome w i l l be p r a c tic a lly uniform procedure in a l l s ta te and fe d era l courts throughout the United S ta te s , a condition ea r n e stly to be sought. Future generations w ill appraise the importance o f the change brought about by the new code o f c i v i l procedure in the fe d e r a l court, w ith the subsequent adoption of almost t o t a ll y id e n t ic a l codes by s ta te a f t e r - s t a t e , in much the same manner as we today look upon the year 1848 and th e subsequent spread of code pleadingsfrom i t s beginnings with the appearance o f th e F ield Code in Few York.

According to G. Dexter Blount;

zzz I t has been said o f the Federal Rules o f c i v i l Procedure th at th ey have heen ^heralded as th e most Important step taken to improve J u d ic ia l procedure in t h is country in f i f t y years . 3 I f one were speaking about Arizona, the new ru les o f c i v i l procedure fo r Arizona might be heralded as the most important step taken to improve J u d icia l procedure sin ce the beginning o f stateh ood.

J u s tic e •"

G. Dexter B lount, "improving the Adm inistration o f American Bar A ssociation Journal, XOTI (March,

19411, 1 5 8 .

CHAPTER XIIX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary*

Law, the m unicipal or p o s itiv e law, i s a

concomitant o f c iv iliz a tio n * t io n , no law would e x ist*

I f man liv e d in complete is o la ­

But the mere ex isten ce o f law i s

not s u ff ic ie n t to reg u la te and con trol tlie human a ctio n s o f man to h is fellow-man; there must he a force or power behind th e law to compel obedience to it*

That in ta n g ib le something

which compels man t o observe and resp ect the law i s c a lled sanctions*

In m unicipal or p o s itiv e law the san ction may l i e

in the th reat o f punishment by th e c i v i l a u th o r itie s , as in crim inal law, or i t may l i e in the assurance th at he who v io la t e s th e law may have t o make compensation to the person who has been injured by such v io la tio n , as in c i v i l law. Law, as the term i s used in t h is t h e s is , reg u la tes the conduct o f human b e in g s; i t does not make human conduct* th e contrary, human conduct makes law.

To

But not every ru le of

human conduct is a law; fo r in sta n ce, a ru le which reg u la te s manners or s o c ia l conduct does not have the d ig n ity nor the fo rce o f law.

The present body o f laws i s the r e s u lt o f an

evolution ary process during which v io len ce In the settlem ent o f d isp u tes has been replaced by orderly p ro cesses. Laws, however, are not s e lf-e x e c u tin g .

When observance

o f the law i s not voluntary, there must be some agency w ith

234

s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y and power t o com pel o b serv an ce* agency i s th e c o u r t.

T h is

The c o u r t, t h e r e f o r e , becomes t h e m ost

im p o rta n t p a r t o f t h e la w - e n f o r c in g m a c h in e ry o f t h e s t a t e . F o r some tim e t h e A m erican C o u rts have had t o w ith ­ s ta n d s e v e r e c r i t i c i s m b e c a u s e o f t h e i r i n e f f i c i e n c y .

Most

o f t h i s i n e f f i c i e n c y h a s b een due t o cumbersome c o u r t p r o ­ c e d u re o r in co m p eten t ju d g e s .

D elay s i n th e j u d i c i a l adm in­

i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e o f t e n have cau sed a p a r t i a l d e n i a l o f j u s t i c e and i n some c a s e s a t o t a l d e n i a l .

C ases som etim es

have b een d e c id e d p u r e ly on t e c h n i c a l i t i e s o f p ro c e d u re r a t h e r th a n on th e m e r its o f t h e c a s e . T here h as b ee n p r a c t i c a l l y u n i v e r s a l ag reem en t on th e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t A m erican j u s t i c e n eed s im provem ent.

To f in d

th e means o f b r in g in g a b o u t t h a t im provem ent so t h a t A m erican j u s t i c e w i l l be a s n e a r l y p e r f e c t a s i s hum anly p o s s i b l e o f a tta in m e n t h as b een t h e o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s s tu d y and r e s e a r c h ; t h e r e f o r e , th e p r i n c i p a l e f f o r t s i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n have b e e n d i r e c t e d to w ard a s tu d y o f th e p e r s o n n e l on th e hench and to w ard c o u r t p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e . A c t i v i t i e s i n th e f i e l d o f r e s e a r c h have been c a r r i e d on by th e A m erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n , A m erican J u d i c a t u r e 'S i c i e t y , and vaf& ous s t a t e b a r and l o c a l b a r a s s o c i a t i o n s ; a l s o , by th e A m erican Academy o f P o l i t i c a l and S o c ia l S c ie n c e .

The S e n a te

and th e House o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s C o n g ress, t o o , have h e ld e x te n s iv e h e a r in g s on m a tte r s c o n n e c te d w ith

235

the j u d ic ia l adm inistration o f ju stic e and have conducted in v e s tig a tio n s in to s p e c ia l phases of i t , such as bankruptcy. Several organizations in the various f ie l d s o f scien ce have co-operated w ith le g a l in s t it u t io n s ( s o c ie t ie s ) in the e ffo r t to improve American j u s t ic e .

Most o f the a c t i v i t i e s o f th ese

organ ization s which have been included in t h is research took p lace concurrently with the progress o f t h is study. The procedure follow ed in t h is research f a l l s in to two p r in c ip a l typ es o f a c t i v i t i e s ; f ir s t * the usual search in the lib r a r ie s which included both general as w e ll as law lib r a r ie s in Arizona and in Los A ngeles; and second* in v e s tig a tio n b f personal co n ta cts.

In t h is la t t e r group were interview s

w ith judges* attorneys* c lie n ts* other litig a n ts * and various persons of n on -legal p ro fessio n s as w e ll as b u sin ess men and women and ju st ordinary la y p ersons.

Court procedure was

stud ied and analyzed from observations made w hile the court a c tu a lly was in a c tio n .

The a c t i v i t i e s o f various le g a l

organ ization s were p a rticip a ted in and c lo se contact was main­ tain ed w ith th e ir research and in v e stig a to r y a c t i v i t i e s and w ith experiments th a t were being made in the f i e l d under in ­ v e s tig a tio n In t h is p r o je c t,

in the la t t e r group o f a c t i v i ­

t i e s f-in v e s tig a tio n by personal co n ta cts—the work o f the in v e s tig a to r has been g r e a tly f a c ilit a t e d by the circumstance o f h is being a member o f the le g a l p rofession and o f h is being axaas&hsxxBf engaged a c tiv e ly in the p ra ctice of law and o f

236

having been so engaged for the past th ir te e n years* The two main procedures follow ed in t h is in v e stig a tio n have been supplemented by the c o lle c tio n o f a vast amount o f secondary m a teria ls, such as newspaper c lip p in g s, pamphlets, memoranda, rep o rts, c ir c u la r s , l e t t e r s , e t c .

A lso, many books

and p e r io d ic a ls in the f ie ld of law and Ju d icial adm inistra­ tio n of Ju stice have been added t o the in v e stig a to r *s personal lib r a r y and used in t h is study* The courts occupy an anomalous p o sitio n in our demo­ c r a tic form o f government; they are now part o f the government yet stand apart from i t ; they must p rotect the m inority against the government when i t attempts to encroach upon the r ig h ts of th a t m inority, even though i t be a s in g le in d iv id u a l.

The

function of th e court i s to adjudicate hot only private d is ­ p u tes, but a ls o d isp u tes between in d iv id u a ls and the govern­ ment.

The Judiciary, th erefo re, should be independent.

An

independent Judiciary i s e s s e n t ia l to our democratic form o f government * The background of the independent Judiciary in the United S ta tes i s found in E nglish h is to r y .

I t began with th e

c o n flic t between King lames the F ir s t and S ir Edward Coke. The b a t tle fo r ju d ic ia l independence f i n a l l y was won in 1700 when W illiam the Third esta b lish ed l i f e tenure with judges removable only by impeachment- fo r m isbehavior.

The provin­

c i a l judge in American c o lo n ia l days was not fr e e ; hfe was

237

dependent upon the w i l l o f King George.

Then when the colon ies

became fr e e , there was se t up an independent ju d icia r y . Although the e a rly stru ggle fo r independence of the ju d icia r y was between the Crown and the bench, today i t i s m ostly between p o l i t i c a l party organ ization s and imeumbent judges; th is i s true e s p e c ia lly in s ta te cou rts.

The method

o f s e le c tin g judges and the tenure o f th eir~*offices are the two most important consid erations in an independent ju d icia ry . Judges are se le c te d e ith e r by the e le c t iv e method or by some form o f appointive method o f which there are a number o f v a r ie t ie s . In the ea rly h isto r y o f the United S ta te s the appoint­ iv e method was p r a c tic a lly the only method used, but in the n in eteen th century, as a r e s u lt o f the spread of Jacksonian Democracy, a s h if t f r omit he appointive to the e le c t iv e method occurred.

Today th e trend i s away from s e le c tio n by popular

e le c tio n and back toward the appointive methods*

The r e a lly

modern appointive methods today are circumscribed with many more safeguards than some o f the older appointive methods which were in d isrepute •

One way o f safeguarding the ap­

point iv e method i s t o have one agency nominate a l i s t of e l ig ib le s and a d iffe r e n t agency make the appointment from th at l i s t .

Such a method proposes th at the appointing agency

be e n tir e ly fr e e and independent of the nominating agency. The importance o f having an independent ju d iciary w ith

238

th e moral courage t o withstand th e p assions of the m ultitude has been demonstrated on many occasion s.

H istory recounts

many in stan ces of the moral courage o f a Judge who risked everything he p ossessed , even h is l i f e , in opposing popular wrath or royal resentment*

Such heroism seldom i s c a lle d fo r

in t h is day; however, in th o se s ta te s in which the Judge must face r e -e le c tio n by popular v o te, the Jusges are l i k e l y t o be intim idated by th a t circum stance. Although life -te n u r e J u d icia l o f f ic e encourages inde­ pendence o f th e Judiciary, l i f e tenure may tempt a Judge to abuse o f h is J u d icia l o ffic e *

One of the reasons fo r that

tem ptation i s the r e a liz a tio n th a t impeachment—the usual method o f removing l i f e tenure Judges in the s t a t e s —i s ra rely used and i s a cumbersome method at b e s t.

Defeat at an e le c ­

tio n i s a much more e f f e c t iv e and a more certa in way o f r e ­ moving incompetent and corrupt Judges from o f f ic e . J u d ic ia l Ju stice i s not impersonal; th erefo re, i t i s lo g ic a l that step s t o improve i t should begin with improving th e personnel o f Judges on the bench.

The growing com plexity

o f modern l i f e and o f law i t s e l f requires th at the Judge be p ossessed o f q u a litie s other than honesty and high moral p r in c ip le s .

The day o f the ^frontier* Judge i s gone fo r e v e r ,,

There i s an ever-in creasin g demand fo r more tra in in g in le g a l h is to r y , in le g a l sc ie n c e , and in the philosophy o f law, as w e ll as for experience in the p ra ctic e of law, in th ose who a sp ire to the Ju d iciary.

BZ 9

Since tiie con sid erations which in flu en ce a judge *s d ecisio n s are numerous and variou s, and sin ce the dominating in flu en ces in the same in d iv id u a l judge d if f e r according to the p a rticu la r case before the court, i t i s im possible to d efin e a type o f le g a l mind and a ttitu d e th at might be considered as the one b est type; for in sta n ce, a judge*a d eci­ sio n may be lo g ic a lly eorrect yet be a poor d ecisio n in the lig h t o f a l l other fa c to r s in the case*

Two or more in d ivid

u a ls who are eq u ally w e ll informed and p ossessed of equ ally lo g ic a l minds may arrive at d iffe r e n t conclusions from the same s e t of fa cts* Customs and u t i l i t y , a lso s o c ia l and economic condi­ t io n s , are fa c to r s which in flu en ce a judge *s d e c isio n s; th e r e fo r e , he should be a man o f experience as w e ll as a student * Undersirable t r a it s which d etract from the d esirab le q u a lit ie s o f a judge, are ir r ita b le n e s s , ill-te m p e r , a ty ra n n ica l d is p o s itio n , la eh o f p oise and manners, and h is being o u t-o f-ste p w ith s o c ie ty .

The trend today i s to place

younger men on the bench, men w ith demonstrated id e a l o f p u b lic se r v ic e and l e s s l i k e ly to have undesirable t r a i t s . The somewhat recent appointment o f W illiam 0 . Douglas to the Supreme Court o f th e United S ta te s i s in conform ity with th at trend* In Arizona judges are elected by popular vote in the

240

same manner as candidates for other p o l i t i c a l o f f ic e except th at the names o f ju d ic ia l candidates appear without party d esig n a tio n .

The democratic nominees, however V see th a t th e ir

party a f f i l i a t i o n s are w e ll ad vertised before th e general e le c tio n because, In most in sta n ces, securing th e democratic nomination In Arizona means e le c tio n in November.

A nation­

wide Survey by the American Bar A ssociation of r e s u lts obtain­ ed by th e e le c t iv e method gave Arizona a ratin g of “good.** In th e e le c tio n o f 1940, the S tate BarA ssociation ©f Arizona attempted to supplement the regular e le c t iv e method by making known to the e le c to r a te the candidates favored by the Bar A sso cia tio n .

The purpose was to in flu en ce the v o ters to favor

the Bar A s s o c ia t io n s candidate. The methods o f nominating for ju d ic ia l o f f ic e may be divided in to four major groups: (I) nomination by party primary, (2} nomination by non-partisan primary, (5} nomina­ tio n in party convention, and (4} nomination in th ose s ta te s In which nomination on a p o l i t i c a l party tic k e t i s to e le c tio n .

equivalent

In Arizona nomination i s by party primary, but

democratic nomination I s p r a c tic a lly equivalent to e le c tio r i. As to the d iffe r e n t methods of general e le c tio n , there are those s ta te s in which the names of the ju d ic ia l candidates appear with party designation* and those s ta te s in which they appear without party d esign ation . In some s t a t e s , including C aliforn ia, an Incumbent

241

Judge i s subjected p e r io d ic a lly to the t e s t o f having the e le c to r s vote on whether he should be continued in o f f ic e or r e tir e d , no competing can d id ate's name to appear on the b a llo t* Those who favor the e le c tiv e method contend that i t i s the only democratic way os s e le c tin g important o f f i c i a l s ; th a t i t lea v es the judge fr e e from the in flu en ce s o f the appointing o f f i c i a l or agency; that the people in a lo c a l d is t r ic t are l i k e l y to know more about th e q u a lific a tio n s o f the candidates than the governor; th a t th e e le c tiv e method has worked s u c c e s s fu lly —th erefo re, i t must be a l l r ig h t; and f in a ll y , th at sin ce judges can declare laws void , the judges should not be removed from popular co n tro l. Those who are opposed to the e le c t iv e method contend th a t the m ajority o f the e le c to r s are not s u f f ic ie n t ly in ­ formed as to the q u a lific a tio n s of th e candidates to vote i n t e l lig e n t l y on th e ju d ic ia l t i c k e t ; th a t the voters already are overburdened with th e len gth of the b a l l o t ; that i t is le s s p o ssib le fo r th e e le c to r s to vote fo r judges than for n o n -ju d icia l candidates because a judge cannot have a p o lic y or platform as other candidates in v a ria b ly have; that certain fam iliar surnames in a community w i l l a ttr a c t votes regard­ l e s s o f the q u a lific a tio n s of the candidate; th at many e le c ­ tio n s degenerate in to a p opularity co n test; th a t the demands upon an incumbent judge r e su ltin g from the approach o f an

342

e le c tio n in te r fe r e s w ith h is e ffic ie n c y ; th at the campaign methods a candidate fo r Judgeship must reso rt to lowers the d ig n ity o f J u d icia l o f f ic e ; th at the e le c tiv e method has a tendency to make the Judge a p u b lic ity -se e k e r ; and f in a ll y , th a t the e le c tiv e method turns Judges in to p o lit ic ia n s and p o lit ic ia n s in to Judges* The appointive method of s e le c tin g Judges, although th e same in i t s e s s e n t ia ls wherever i t may he found, varies considerably in the d e ta ils*

In some s ta te s where the

governor makes the appointments, the confirm ation i s by the s ta te senate; in other s ta te s i t i s by a governorfs council which i s an ele c te d Body; and in s t i l l other s ta te s the con­ firm ation i s by a board c o n sistin g of two Judges and the atto rn ey -g en era l.

In New Hampshire the appointments are

made by the governor and h is cou n cil a ctin g j o in t ly with no requirements fo r further confirm ation.

In Connecticut judges

are elected by the le g is la tu r e upon nomination of the govern­ or.

Both New Hampshire and Connecticut are the only s ta te s

th at employ th e ir resp ectiv e methods*

E lectio n by the l e g i s ­

la tu re i s the method employed in some s ta te s w hile in s t i l l other s ta te s certa in judges are appointed by other judges o f superior rank* One plan th at has been suggested for s e le c tin g judges i s that a commission composed o f both lawyers and laymen make an im partial and in t e llig e n t s e le c tio n of the b est men

a v a i l a b l e t o f i l l J u d i c i a l o f f i c e and p r e p a r e a l i s t o f n o m in ees, and t h a t th e a c t d a l a p p o in tm e n t, by w h a te v e r m ethod, b e made from t h i s s e l e c t l i s t o f n o m in ees•

A n o th er s u g g e s tio n

f o r s e c u r in g a s e l e c t l i s t o f nom inees i s t o have a form o f r a t i n g s i m i l a r t o t h a t em ployed by th e U n ite d S t a t e s C i v i l S e rv ic e Commission* The n e x t s te p a f t e r a s e l e c t l i s t o f nom inees h a s been o b ta in e d i s t h e a c t u a l a p p o in tm e n t from t h a t l i s t *

I n most

p la n s i t i s p ro p o se d t h a t t h e a p p o in tiv e power be v e s te d i n th e g o v e rn o r a s c h i e f e x e c u tiv e o f f i c e r o f t h e s t a t e .

In th e

p l a n a d o p te d b y C a l i f o r n i a b y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment i n 1934, t h e g o v e rn o r ta k e s t h e i n i t i a l s te p by m aking th e a p p o in tm e n t h im s e lf ; th e n a th re e -m a n b o ard h a s t h e power t o c o n firm o r r e j e c t th e g o v e r n o r*s a p p o in tm e n t; b u t i t can n o t make any s u b s t i t u t i o n s f

I n some s t a t e s , w here t h e i n i t i a l

n o m in a tio n i s made by one ag e n cy su ch a s a com m ission and th e a p p o in tm e n t i s made b y th e g o v e rn o r from th e l i s t o f nom inees, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s th e f i n a l word in th e power t o c o n firm or re je c t. B ecause t h e e l e c t i v e m ethod i s l e s s s u c c e s s f u l in d e n s e ly p o p u la te d a r e a s th a n in ru r& l d i s t r i c t s , some p e rso n s s u g g e s t t h a t a form o f l o c a l o p tio n be p ro v id e d , p e r m i tt in g e a c h d i s t r i c t t o choose b etw een th e e l e c t i v e m ethod and some form o f a p p o in tiv e m ethod, One o f th e d a n g e rs o f th e a p p o in tiv e m ethod i s t h a t

u n l e s s i t be w e ll g u a rd e d , i t may be u se d a s a means o f rew ard f o r p o l i t i c a l s u p p o rt*

Xn t h a t e v e n t th e a p p o in tiv e

m ethod i s l i k e l y t o be w orse th a n t h e e l e c t i v e m ethod. The r e a c t i o n o f th e e l e c t o r a t e i n r e c e n t y e a rs h as b een a g a i n s t th e change t o th e a p p o in tiv e m eth o d s; t h e r e f o r e , much e d u c a tio n a l work w i l l have t o be done b e f o r e th e m a j o r i ty o f p e o p le a r e c o n v in ce d o f th e a p p o in tiv e m e th o d 's s u p e r i o r i t y . The o p p o s itio n t o ch an g in g from th e e l e c t i v e t o some fo rm o f a p p o in tiv e method h as come from v a r io u s s o u rc e s among w hich i s th e i n e r t i a to w ard change o f th o s e v o t e r s who do n o t u n d e rs ta n d t h e i s s u e s and ta k e n e i t h e r th e tim e n o r t h e t r o u b l to in v e s tig a te . i n a v o te o f " n o ." la b o r.

T h is i n e r t i a , t h e r e f o r e , f in d s e x p r e s s io n Some o p p o s itio n h a s come from o rg a n iz e d

Xn some J u r i s d i c t i o n s t h e r e a r e p o l i t i c i a n s o f t h e

dem agogic and v e n a l s o r t , o r p o w e rfu l m in o r ity g ro u p s , who do n o t w ant th e c o u r ts removed from t h e i r c i r c l e o f i n f l u e n c e . & lso , t h e r e a r e some f a n a t i c a l a d v i c a te s o f "p u re dem ocracy" and a s m a ll group o f la w y e rs t o be found on th e s id e o f o p p o s i t io n . J u d i c i a l t e n u r e —t h e manner i n , and th e p e r io d f o r , w hich J u d i c i a l o f f i c e i s had and e n J o y e d - - is i n t i m a t e l y con­ n e c te d w ith th e q u a l i t y o f men t o be o fc ta in e d e fo r Judges* The im p o rta n t f a c t o r s in c o n s id e r in g J u d i c i a l t e n u r e a r e th e le n g th o f tim e a Judge may e x p e c t t o e n jo y o f f i c e w ith o u t h a v in g t o go th ro u g h some p r o c e s s o f r e in s ta te m e n t o r co n -

245

f ir m a t i o n and t h e m ethods o f r e t i r i n g o r rem oving Judges from th e bench* The m ost common m ethods o f e l im in a t in g ju d g es from o f f i c e a r e by v o lu n ta r y r e tir e m e n t and by d e f e a t f o r r e e le c tio n .

T h ere a r e s e v e r a l m ethods o f in v o lu n ta r y r e t i r e ­

ment o f ju d g e s ; com pulsory r e tir e m e n t a t a f i x e d a g e , rem oval by j u d i c i a l a c t i o n , rem oval by e x e c u tiv e a c t i o n , and e lim in ­ a t i o n by l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n . To en co u rag e v o lu n ta r y r e tir e m e n t p r o v i s io n s sh o u ld b e made f o r an a d e q u a te p e n s io n sy stem and an arran g em en t p e r m ittin g th e ju d g e t o do p a r t- ti m e s e r v ic e i f he i s s t i l l a b le t o do s o .

I f t h e s e f a c t o r s a r e sup p lem en ted by d i p l o ­

m a tic en co u rag em en t, e s p e c i a l l y I f t h i s can be done th ro u g h f r i e n d l y a s s o c i a t e s o f h i s , th e su p e ra n n u a te d ju d g e becomes l e s s o f a p ro b le m .

An a d e q u a te r e tir e m e n t p e n s io n , o f c o u rs e ,

i s s tr o n g encouragem ent t o r e t i r e b u t som etim es n o t s tr o n g enough.

The p la c in g o f ju d g e s on a v o lu n ta r y p a r t- tim e

b a s i s c r e a t e s a r e s e r v e f o r c e t o r e l i e v e th e c o u r t when a te m p o ra ry b u t u n u s u a l b u rd e n i s p u t upon i t .

Com pulsory r e ­

tir e m e n t a t a f ix e d age Was th e param ount I s s u e o f th e d ay in 1937 when P r e s i d e n t R o o s e v e lt, in h i s m essage t o C o n g ress, c a l l e d fo r" n e w b lo o d ” i n th e Supreme C o u rt.

Today—o n ly f o u r

y e a r s l a t e r — sev e n o f th e n in e j u s t i c e s a r e R o o se v e lt a p p o in ­ t e e s ; Hugo L . B la c k , S ta n le y -F. R eed, F e l i x F r a n k f u r t e r , F ra n k Murphy, W illia m 0 . D o u g las, James F . B y rn e s, and

246 R o b e rt H# Jackson*

The o n ly j u s t i c e s on t h e Supreme C ourt

Bench who have n o t b een a p p o in te d b y P r e s id e n t R o o se v e lt a r e C h ie f J u s t i c e H a rla n F . S to n e and A s s o c ia te J u s t i c e Owen J . R o b e r ts , and ev en S to n e i s in d e b te d t o R o o se v e lt f o r b e in g e le v a te d t o t h e r a n k o f C h ie f J u s tic e # Removal by j u d i c i a l a c t i o n o c c u rs i n t h a t p r o c e s s o f rem o v al w hereby a ju d g e who i s ch a rg ed w ith m isco n d u ct o r ab u se o f o f f i c e i s t r i e d b y some o th e r fu d g e o r b y some b ra n c h o f t h e j u d i c i a r y e s p e c i a l l y d e s ig n a te d f o r t h a t p u r ­ p o s e ; f o r i n s t a n c e , u n d e r th e Sumner B i l l p a sse d i n 1957, a f e d e r a l judge who i s g u i l t y o f co n d u ct " o th e r th a n good b e h a v io r " w i l l be g iv e n a h e a r in g b e f o r e a s p e c i a l c o u rt t o b e convened by t h e C h ie f J u s t i c e o f th e U n ite d S ta te s # Removal b y e x e c u tiv e a c t i o n , a s one o f th e m ethods f o r i n v o l u n ta r y r e t i r e m e n t , e x i s t s nowhere i n th e U n ite d S t a t e s i n t h e s e n s e t h a t any e x e c u tiv e h as su c h d i c t a t o r i a l pow ers t h a t a ju d g e may be removed a t t h e w i l l o f t h e e x e c u tiv e and on h i s i n i t i a t i v e and s o le r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; how ever, in some s t a t e s th e g o v e rn o r, i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w ith some o th e r b ra n c h o f th e g o v ern m en t, o r some g o v e rn m e n ta l ag e n cy , may remove a ju d g e .

F o r i n s t a n c e , in Hew Y ork th e g o v e rn o r ta k e s th e

i n i t i a t i v e , b u t t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e s e n a te m ust concur#

In

M a s s a c h u s e tts th e j u d i c i a l c o u n c il m ust co n cu r w ith th e g o v e r n o r• E lim in a tio n o f ju d g e s by l e g i s l a t i v e a c ti o n may be

24 7

e i t h e r b y a d d r e s s o r by im peachm ent.

The fo rm er i s re m o v a l

b y a J o i n t r e s o l u t i o n o f b o th h o u ses o f th e l e g i s l a t u r e ; i t e x i s t s in tw e n ty - e ig h t s t a t e s .

Impeachment p ro c e e d in g s

d i f f e r from a d d r e s s i n t h a t , w h ile a d d r e s s r e q u i r e s a J o in t r e s o l u t i o n b u t p ro v id e s f o r no t r i a l p ro c e d u re a t w hich th e a c c u s e d h as a chance t o d efen d h im s e l f , im peachm ent r e q u i r e s t h a t c h a rg e s o f m isco n d u ct be made o n ly by th e lo w e r h o p se, and t h a t th e a c c u se d be t r i e d by t h e u p p e r h o u se , t h e s e n a te , s i t t i n g a s a c o u r t , a p ro c e d u re w hich a f f o r d s th e a c c u se d a chance t o p r e s e n t h i s d e f e n s e .

The u se o f im peachm ent b y

t h e s t a t e s i n e a r l i e r d ay s i s a n y th in g b u t a g lo r i o u s page o f h is to ry .

By c o n t r a s t , one f o u r f e d e r a l Judges have b ee n r e ­

moved b y im peachm ent, t h e l a s t o f whom was Judge H a ls te d L . R i t t e r who was im peached i n 1936.

The a p p a re n t re a s o n f o r

fe w e r im peachm ents o f f e d e r a l Ju d g es p ro b a b ly I s n o t b e c a u se o f a h ig h e r c a l i b e r o f J u d g e s, b u t b ec au se o f th e g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y t o g e t t h e House o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s o f t h e B h ite d S t a t e s t o i n i t i a t e th e n e c e s s a r y p ro c e e d in g s . F o r a c ra fts m a n o r an a r t i s a n t o do good w ork, he .m ust have good t o o l s .

H is s k i l l and t o o l s a r e com plem entary

t o ea ch o t h e r ; w ith e i t h e r a lo n e he co u ld a c h ie v e v e r y l i t t l e . By co m p ariso n , a c o u r t , th o u g h i t have th e s e b e s t t a l e n t a v a i l ­ a b l e , on t h e b en c h , would be h an d ica p p ed in p r o p o r t io n t o th e d e g re e o f in a d e q u a c y o r d e f ic i e n c y in i t s p r o c e d u r e .

P ra c tic e

and p ro c e d u re I s t o t h e J u d i c i a r y what t o o l s a r e t o t h e

24 S c ra fts m a n o r a r t i s a n * The m ost s i g n i f i c a n t d a te i n t h e h i s t o r y o f f e d e r a l p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re i s S eptem ber I d , 1958*

On t h a t d a te th e

new r u l e s i f c i v i l p ro c e d u re f o r t h e D i s t r i c t d o u r ts o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s w ent i n t o e f f e c t *

The m ost s i g n i f i c a n t d a te in

th e h i s t o r y o f A riz o n a C ourt p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re i s J a n u a ry 1 , 1940, f o r th e same reaso n *

T h is s tu d y does n o t in c lu d e

c r im in a l p ro c e d u re e x c e p t a s i t may he to u ch ed upon i n c i d e n t ­ a l l y ; how ever, a new code o f c r im in a l p ro c e d u re went i n t o e f f e c t i n A riz o n a on A p r il 1 , 1940* The c i v i l c o u r t p ro c e d u re , w h ich had been i n e f f e c t b e f o r e th e a d o p tio n o f th e new r u l e s , was i n h e r i t e d from E n g la n d ; i t was known a s common law p ro c ed u re*

I t p ra c tic ­

a l l y h a s become unknown In c o u r t p ro c e d u re in th e U n ite d S t a t e s to d a y e x c e p t f o r a few t r a c e s o f i t h e re and th e re * Common law p ro c e d u re was r e p la c e d by code p r o c e d u r e - - t h a t i s , c o u r t p ro c e d u re p r e s c r i b e d by th e a c t s o f th e l e g i s l a t u r e * Code p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re h a s en d u red f o r n e a r l y a c e n tu r y , b u t a t th e p r e s e n t tim e i t i s g iv in g way t o p ro c e d u re u n d e r r u l e s p ro m u lg ated by c o u r ts u n d e r a u t h o r i t y g iv e n t o th e c o u r ts b y th e l e g i s l a t u r e s * The movement t o b r in g A r i z o n a v c i v il p ro c e d u re i n t o c o n fo rm ity w ith f e d e r a l c i v i l p ro c e d u re began In 1937.

The

A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il had s tu d ie d t h e s i t u a t i o n and in I t s r e p o r t o f A p r i l , 1937, recommended t h a t s t e p s he i n i t i a t e d t o a b o l i s h th e code p ro c e d u re and t o v e s t th e ru le -m a k in g

249 power i n th e Supreme C ourt o f th e S t a t e .

An a c t was p a s s e d

by th e A riz o n a L e g i s l a t u r e in J a n u a ry , 1959, g r a n tin g t h a t pow er t o t h e Supreme C ourt*

P u rs u a n t t o t h a t a u t h o r i t y , t h e

c o u r t p ro m u lg a te d new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re f o r th e c o u r ts /

o f A riz o n a w hich became e f f e c t i v e J a n u a ry 1 , 1940*

These new

r u l e s , w hich a r e i n e f f e c t now, a b r o g a te th e fo rm e r code p r o ­ c e d u re .

The f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e f f i c i e n t c o u rt p ro c e d ­

u re now r e s t s upon th e Supreme C o u rt.

The same may be s a id

w ith r e s p e c t t o th e f e d e r a l c o u r ts , s in c e C ongress h as v e s te d t h e ru le -m a k in g power i n th e Supreme C ourt o f th e U n ite d S ta te s . F o r some tim e t h e r e h a s been c o n s id e r a b le d e b a te o v e r th e q u e s tio n a s t o w h e th e r th e ru le -m a k in g power r e a l l y b e ­ lo n g s t o t h e c o u r ts o r t o th e l e g i s l a t u r e .

Xn o th e r w ords,

i s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e r e a l l y s u r r e n d e r in g one o f i t s own pow ers when i t v e s t s a u t h o r i t y i n t h e c o u r ts t o make t h e i r own ru le s ?

The c o u r ts had made t h e i r own r u l e s lo n g b e f o re

t h e r e was an y l e g i s l a t i v e a tte m p t t o make su c h r u l e s ; th e ru le -m a k in g pow er, t h e r e f o r e , i s in h e r e n t i n th e c o u r t. The f i r s t a tte m p t by C ongress t o d i c t a t e t o th e c o u r ts o c c u rre d i n 1792 when C o n g ress p a sse d an a c t r e q u i r i n g th e c o u r ts t o exam ine p e n s io n c la im s o f s o l d i e r s who fo u g h t in th e re v o lu tio n .

C o n g ress d i r e c t e d th e c o u r ts t o subm it t h e i r

o p in io n s on t h e s e p e n s io n c la im s f o r re v ie w b y t h e S e c r e ta r y o f War.

T h is w ould have made t h e c o u r ts s u b o r d in a te t o th e

250 l e g i s l a t i v e ‘b ra n c h o f th e governm ent*

The c o u r ts r e p e l l e d

t h i s a tte m p t t o Impose upon th e c o u r ts a n o n - j u d i c i a l f u n c tio n and t o s u b o r d in a te them t o C ongress* The f i r s t r e a l s u r r e n d e r o f power by th e c o u r ts t o t h e U n ite d S t a t e s o c c u rre d i n th e y e a r 1801*

I n t h a t y e a r C ongress

a b o lis h e d t h r e e te rm s o f th e suprem e C ourt o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s so t h a t i t c o u ld n o t s i t a g a in u n t i l 1803.

The n e x t im p o rta n t

y e a r I n th e h i s t o r y o f j u d i c i a l p ro c e d u re was 1848, th e y e a r In w h ich t h e movement f o r code p le a d in g s b e g a n .

T hat movement

was sp o n so re d b y D avid D udley F i e l d ; i t beg an i n Mew York and t h e o r i g i n a l code became known a s t h e F ie l d Code.

From Mew

York th e c o d e -p le a d in g movement s p re a d t o a l l th e o th e r s t a t e s . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s l e g i s l a t i v e c o n t r o l o v e r c o u rt p ro c e d u re — code p le a d in g s —have b e e n : d i v i s i o n o f r e s p o n s i b i l ­ i t y b etw een c o u r ts and l e g i s l a t u r e s , i n f l e x i b l e p ro c e d u re , a m ass o f d e c is io n s d e a lin g w ith p ro c e d u re a lo n e w hich had t o be fo llo w e d a s p r e c e d e n ts , c o n tin u a l l e g i s l a t i v e t i n k e r i n g , and th e p r e s s u r e o f la w y e rs on th e l e g i s l a t u r e t o g e t amend­ m ents t o e x i s t i n g p ro c e d u re so a s t o a f f e c t a c ti o n s i n w hich th e p a r t i c u l a r law y e r was i n t e r e s t e d . W ith t h e a p p e a ra n c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n w hich t r a n s f e r r e d th e ru le -m a k in g power from th e l e g i s l a t u r e t o th e c o u r t, t h e r e came th e u s u a l t e s t s o f th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f such la w s .

The S t a t e o f W ashington, b e in g one o f t h e f i r s t t o

u n d e rta k e t h e e x p e rim e n t o f t r a n s f e r r i n g th e ru le -m a k in g

251 power t o t h e c o u r t , lik e w is e was th e p io n e e r i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f su ch law s* May, 1928*

The f i r s t ca se was in

By November, 1933, f i v e d i f f e r e n t c a s e s had been

d e c id e d by t h e Supreme G ourt o f th e S t a t e o f W ashington*

Xn

t h e s e f i v e c a s e s th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e law had been c h a lle n g e d on a t l e a s t sev en p o i n t s ; th u s , th e S t a t e o f Wash­ in g to n , by d e c id in g i n f a v o r o f th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y on e v e ry i s s u e r a i s e d , e s t a b l i s h e d a p re c e d e n t f o r th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f s i m i l a r s t a t u t e s i n o th e r s t a t e s .

In 1931 a t e s t c a se was d e­

c id e d i n f a v o r o f th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f a W isco n sin law ; i n New M exico, i n 1936, a s i m i l a r t e s t was made w ith th e same re s u lts *

I n view o f th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e s t s made and th e

i s s u e s r a i s e d in th e s e c a s e s , i t seem s o b v io u s t h a t th e con­ s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f law s t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e ru le -m a k in g power from th e l e g i s l a t u r e t o th e c o u r ts i s w e ll e s ta b lis h e d * A lth o u g h t h e p r e s e n t p ro c e d u re u n d er th e new r u l e s i s a trem en d o u s im provem ent o v e r th e fo rm er p ro c e d u re , an a d d i­ t i o n a l p r o v is io n s h o u ld be added t o g iv e th e t r i a l Judge p le n a r y power t o r e l a x o r suspend an y s p e c i f i c r u l e when, in h i s o p in io n , th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l r u l e w i l l r e s u l t i n i n j u s t i c e i n th e p a r t i c u l a r ea se a t bar*

T hat su ch s i t u a ­

t i o n s w i l l a r i s e seems o b v io u s b e c a u se i t i s o f t h e n a tu r e o f e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s t h a t e v e ry p o s s i b l e c o n tin g e n c y can n o t be a n tic ip a te d c a n d t h a t e x c e p tio n s a r e t o be ex p e cted *

I t Is

hum anly im p o s s ib le t o com pile a s e t o f r u l e s t h a t would n o t

252 work an i n j u s t i c e i n some c a se w hich c a l l s f o r r e l a x a t i o n o r s u s p e n s io n o f t h e g e n e r a l r u le s *

P r o v is io n s g r a n ti n g th e

c o u r t su c h wide pow ers t o suspend o r r e l a x th e e s ta b l is h e d r u l e s may be found i n t h e Hew J e r s e y P r a c t i c e A ct o f 1912, in th e IS n g lish Supreme C o u rt o f J u d ic a tu r e Act o f 1873, and i n t h e r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re f o r th e perm anent C ourt o f I n t e r ­ n a t i o n a l J u s t i c e (W orld C o u rt)* The new r u l e s now i n f o r c e do g iv e th e t r i a l judge some l a t i t u d e t o r e l a x t h e g e n e r a l r u l e s w i t h 'r e s p e c t t o th e s e r v i c e o f summons and t h e r e t u r n th e r e o n , th e e x te n s io n o f tim e l i m i t s f o r th e d o in g o f c e r t a i n t h i n g s , and f o r th e p r i v i l e g e o f am ending p le a d in g s , b u t t h a t same power t o r e l a x o r suspend sh o u ld e x te n d t o th e r u l e s th r o u g h o u t.

I f su c h a

p r o v i s i o n w ere ad d e d , i t would b r in g t h e l e t t e r o f th e r u l e s I n t o c o n fo rm ity w ith t h e s p i r i t *

The s p i r i t o f th e r u l e s

i s d e c la r e d i n R u le 1 nt o s e c u re th e j u s t , sp e e d y , and in e x ­ p e n s iv e d e te r m in a tio n o f e v e ry c a s e ." T here a r e t h r e e s ta g e s t o c o u r t p ro c e d u re : th e p r e ­ t r i a l p ro c e d u re , t h e t r i a l p r o c e d u re , and t h e p ro c e d u re a f t e r jud g m en t.

T h is r e s e a r c h and stu d y have n o t in c lu d e d th e l a t ­

t e r ; n e i t h e r have t h e y in c lu d e d c r im in a l p ro c e d u re e x c e p t a s i t may have b e e n i n c i d e n t a l t o th e c o n s id e r a tio n o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re i n t h i s s tu d y . Under th e o ld common law p le a d in g s , and u n d e r th e code p le a d in g s w hich w ere i n e f f e c t u n t i l r e p la c e d by th e p r e s e n t

253 p ro c e d u re , t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o lo o k a f t e r p r e - t r i a l p re p a ­ r a t i o n s was upon c o u n s e l; th e c o u r t rem ained p a s s i v e , m e re ly r e f e r e e i n g t h e s k irm is h e s b etw een o p p o sin g co u n sel* ce d u re had b ee n i n h e r i t e d from E n g la n d .

T hat p r o ­

Under th e p r e s e n t

p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re , w hich i s a lm o st t o t a l l y i d e n t i c a l i n b o th th e F e d e r a l and A riz o n a c o u r t s , th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s upon th e c o u r t t o ta k e t h e I n i t i a t i v e an d , i f p o s s i b l e , t o b r in g a b o u t a s e t t l e m e n t b e f o r e t r i a l , o r i f I t f a l l s In t h a t , t o n arro w th e i s s u e s t o be t r i e d b y th e p ro c e s s o f e l i m in a t ­ in g a l l th e

n o n - e s s e n t i a l m a tte r s from

th e I s s u e s .

t h e c o u r t 's

a t t i t u d e a c t i v e in s te a d o f p a s s i v e .

T h is makes

T h is em p h asis on th e c o u r t 's c o n c i l i a t o r y f u n c tio n n o t o r i g i n a l t o A m erican p r a c t i c e .

is

In Germany, p r e - t r i a l

p r a c t i c e b a se d on th e German Code o f 1877, a s amended in 1924, r e q u i r e s th e Judge f i r s t t o t r y t o c o n c i l i a t e th e p a r t i e s . The p r e - t r i a l p r a c t i c e i n e f f e c t to d a y in t h e F e d e r a l and A riz o n a C o u rts had i t s b e g in n in g i n D e t r o it I n 1929. N e c e s s ity fo rc e d I t upon th e D e t r o it C o u rt.

As a r e s u l t o f

th e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f m odem p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re , th e c o u r t c a le n d a r was im proved from a l a g o f n e a r l y f o u r y e a rs t o a l a g o f a p p ro x im a te ly o n ly t e n m o n th s. B efo re th e p r e s e n t r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re went I n to e f f e c t , much tim e was consumed by p ro v in g f a c t s ab o u t w hich t h e r e co u ld be no d i s p u t e — su c h a s t h e w id th o f a s t r e e t , t h e c o n te n ts o f a p u b lic r e c o r d , and s i m i l a r o b v io u s f a c t s . U nder th e p r e s e n t p r a c t i c e th e s e m a tte r s a r e a g re e d upon b y

o p p o sin g c o u n s e l i n in f o r m a l c o n fe re n c e i n th e judge*s ch am b ers, and th e f a c t s a r e s t i p u l a t e d b e f o r e th e case i s p la c e d on th e t r i a l c a le n d a r*

T hese p r e - t r i a l s t i p u l a t i o n s

o f t e n re d u c e th e number o f w itn e s s e s and s h o r te n th e exam ina­ t i o n o f t h e w itn e s s e s who do t e s t i f y , th u s s a v in g tim e and ex p en se f o r th e c o u r t s , t h e l i t i g a n t s , and p e rs o n s co n n e cted w ith t h e case*

S in c e u n d e r th e new p*v>r.' e ->t r i a l p r a c t i c e t h e

c o u r t ta k e s th e i n i t i a t i v e i n s t r i p p i n g a c a s e o f c o l l a t e r a l i s s u e s w h ich a r e tim e-co n su m in g and w hich te n d t o co n fu se a j u r y and som etim es even a ju d g e , la w y e rs a r e abandoning more and more th e u s e o f o b s t r u c t i v e p r a c t i c e s ; and th e t e n ­ d en c y i s d e v e lo p in g f o r o p p o sin g c o u n s e l t o g e t t o g e t h e r i n t h e i r own o f f i c e s and work o u t s t i p u l a t i o n s o f f a c t s b e f o r e a p p e a r in g f o r a p r e - t r i a l c o n fe re n c e w ith t h e ju d g e .

F or t h e

p u rp o se o f rem oving a s f a r a s p o s s i b l e t h e te m p ta tio n t o r e ­ s o r t t o o b s t r u c t i v e t a c t i c s , th e new r u l e s g iv e th e c o u r t t h e power t o a s s e s s p e n a l t i e s in t h e form o f e o s ts t o com­ p e n s a te a l i t i g a n t f o r added expense im posed b y o p p o sin g c o u n s e l’ s o b s t r u c t i v e t a c t i c s in i n s i s t i n g upon p r o o f o f o b v io u s and n o n -d is p u ta b l e f a c t s . By s h o r te n in g t h e tim e consumed in t r y i n g c a s e s , by e l i m in a t in g c a s e s from th e t r i a l d o c k e t ( c a le n d a r ) , by p r e t r i a l c o n c i l i a t i o n , and by d is c o u r a g in g t h e b r in g in g o f n u is a n c e c a s e s , t h e a c t u a l t r i a l d o c k e t c o n ta in s o n ly th o s e c a s e s w hich have s u rv iv e d t h i s s o r t i n g - o u t p r o c e s s — e a s e s

355 i n w hich t h e r e a r e some m a tte r s i n d is p u te w hich can n o t he s e t t l e d w ith o u t a t r i a l - - t h e r e s u l t b e in g t h e s t a b i l i z i n g o f t h e t r i a l d o c k e t, th e sp e e d in g up o f c o u rt w ork, and th e e l i m in a t in g o f u s e l e s s e x p e n se . A n o th er s i t u a t i o n in w hich th e new p r e - t r i a l p r a c t i c e h a s made p o s s i b l e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f b u s in e s s m ethods i s in t h e p r o v i s i o n s f o r a c o n se n t Judgm ent.

When an u n d e rs ta n d in g

h a s been re a c h e d and a b a s i s f o r s e ttle m e n t a r r i v e d a t , th e amount in v o lv e d may be so l a r g e t h a t en fo rcem en t o f a Judg­ ment i n th e u s u a l way by le v y and e x e c u tio n m ight cau se f i n a n c i a l r u i n o f t h e Judgment d e b t o r .

Under t h e new p ro c e d ­

u r e , a c o n se n t Judgment may be e n te r e d p r o v id in g f o r th e paym ent o f t h e amount in v o lv e d on an i n s t a l lm e n t b a s i s , th e r e b y s a v in g t h e Judgment d e b to r from r u i n ; t h e c o u r t, howevefr, r e t a i n s t h e power t o com pel com pliance w ith th e in s ta llm e n t-p a y m e n t a g re e m e n t. An u n w a rra n te d o b je c tio n r a i s e d by some o p p o n en ts o f m odern p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re i s t h a t a Judge may n o t be a b le t o rem ain i m p a r t i a l f o r a su b se q u e n t t r i a l b e c a u se o f th e i n f lu e n c e o f h a v in g had a p re v ie w o f t h e e a s e ; a l s o , t h a t o p in io n s w hich he m ight have e x p re sse d i n a p r e - t r i a l con­ f e r e n c e may e m b a rra ss him a t t h e su b se q u e n t t r i a l o f th e case.

In r e b u t t a l t o t h i s th e c p ro p o n e n ts o f t h e new p r e ­

t r i a l p ro c e d u re u rg e t h a t a Judge who i s f i t t o t r y any case a t a l l sh o u ld n o t be u n f i t t o t r y one i n w hich he has p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a p r e - t r i a l co n feren c e*

256 I n d e fe n s e o f p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re , i t i s u rg e d t h a t som etim es a c l i e n t h as g iv e n h i s a t t o r n e y su ch a c o lo re d s ta te m e n t o f t h e f a c t s t h a t when he g e ts a view o f t h e o th e r s i d e o f th e e a se i n a p r e - t r i a l c o n fe re n c e , he may s e e th e h o p e le s s n e s s o f g o in g on w ith t h e c a se and become aw are t h a t he h a s been m is le d by h i s c l i e n t . The f i n a l p h ase o f t h e j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e in c lu d e d i n t h i s s tu d y i s t r i a l p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d ­ u re .

No a tte m p t was made t o make t h i s a com prehensive s tu d y

o f t h a t p a r t o f t h e p ro c e d u re , b u t m e re ly a s tu d y o f th o s e p h a s e s o f a t r i a l w h e re in th e co ld d e f e c ts ha$re b een most o b v io u s and th e p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r im provement have been th e g re a te s t. The f i r s t c o n s id e r a tio n i s th e Judge*s f u n c tio n in in s tr u c tin g th e ju ry .

B e fo re t h e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d ­

u r e went i n t o e f f e c t , t h e f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was p la c e d on t h e ju d g e t h a t th e j u r y be p r o p e r ly and c o m p le te ly i n s t r u c t e d on a l l v i t a l is s u e d i n t h e c a s e .

The new r u l e s o f c i v i l

p ro c e d u re have s h i f t e d t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y from t h e judge t o c o u n s e l; b u t i n A riz o n a t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y I s s t i l l upon th e judge In c r im in a l c a s e s , n o tw ith s ta n d in g t h a t new r u l e s o f c r im in a l p ro c e d u re have r e p la c e d th e o ld code p ro c e d u re . I n some j u r i s d i c t i o n s th e judge i n s t r u c t s and c h a rg e s t h e ju r y b e f o r e t h e arg u m en ts o f c o u n s e l, and in o th e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s he d o es t h i s a f t e r arg u m en ts o f c o u n s e l.

In

S57

A riz o n a t h e 1928 code r e q u ir e d th e Judge t o i n s t r u c t th e J u ry b e f o r e t h e a rg u m e n ts; t h e n , i f t h e ju r y became sty m ied d u rin g i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s , he was n o t p e r m itte d t o h e lp th e ju r y by g iv in g i t f u r t h e r n e c e s s a r y i n s t r u c t i o n s * more hung j u r i e s th a n was n e c e s s a r y .

T hat r e s u l t e d i n

The new r u l e s o f p r o ­

ce d u re a r e s i l e n t on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e I s no p r o h i b i t i o n i n them a g a in s t t h e c o u r t* s g iv in g jfchsmx f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s t o th e ju r y a t any tim e b e f o r e i t s v e r ­ d ic t.

I n C a l i f o r n i a f o r some tim e i t h a s been m an d ato ry t h a t

t h e ju d g e g iv e a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s i n su ch a s i t u a t i o n . A n o th er im p o rta n t c o n s id e r a tio n i s t h e l a t i t u d e g iv e n t o th e judge and t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p la c e d upon him In comment­ in g t o th e j u r y on t h e e v id e n c e . a r e s i l e n t on t h i s p o i n t .

The new r u l e s o f p ro c e d u re

The o ld common law co n cep t gave

t h e ju d g e w ide l a t i t u d e In t h i s m a tte r ; t h a t i s t h e p r a c t i c e o b se rv e d i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r ts and i n a few s t a t e c o u r ts to d a y .

In m ost s t a t e c o u r t s , in c lu d in g A riz o n a , th e judge

i s g r e a t l y l i m i t e d and r e s t r i c t e d in commenting on th e e v i­ dence t o th e j u r y .

T h is i s v e ry I n c o n s i s t e n t b e c a u se i t

r e f l e c t s a d i s t r u s t i n t h e judge i n s p i t e o f t h e f a c t t h a t he h as been g iv e n power t o s e t a s i d e t h e j u r y f s v e r d i c t , a f a c t w hich r e f l e c t s g r e a t e r t r u s t i n him th a n i f he were m e re ly p e r m itte d t o sum m arize and comment on t h e e v id e n c e t o th e ju ry . P o s s ib l y t h e g r e a t e s t c o n t r a d i c t i o n o r in c o n s is te n c y

258

i n t h e A m erican form o f governm ent i s o u r o b s o le te J u ry sy ste m , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n i t s alm o st t o t a l d is r e g a r d o f r e ­ q u ire d q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r Ju ry s e r v i c e .

Our sy stem p la c e s

t h e g r e a t e s t p o s s i b l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y —a n o th e r manf s l i f e — upon th e Ju ry y e t t h e method o f o b ta in in g J u ro rs le a v e s th e m a tte r o f s e l e c t i o n a lm o st e n t i r e l y t o p u re ch a n ce.

A fu r­

t h e r w e ll-d e s e rv e d c r i t i c i s m i s t h e expense o f t h e Ju ry sy ste m .

A cco rd in g t o an em inent a u t h o r i t y , Ju ry t r i a l s c o s t

th r e e - a n d - o n e - h a l f tim e s more th a n n o n -J u ry t r i a l s . T here i s p r a c t i c a l l y unanim ous agreem ent t h a t a b o l i t i o n o f t h e Ju ry sy stem i s n o t t o be c o n s id e r e d .

The J u ry o f te n

p r o v id e s a shock a b s o rb e r a g a in s t th e i n j u s t i c e t h a t m ight r e s u l t i n a g iv e n c a se from a p u r e ly l e g a l i s t i c c o u rt d e c i­ s io n ; a l s o , t h e mere e x is te n c e o f t h e Ju ry system h as a w hole­ some in f lu e n c e in rem oving s u s p ic io n from c o u r ts and law in g e n e ra l. F iv e p la n s o f m o d if ic a tio n o r s u b s t i t u t i o n f o r Ju ry t r i a l s have b een s u g g e s te d : (1) h a v in g t h r e e Judges and no J u ry t o t r y a c a s e ; ( 2 ) a J u ry o f one Judge and two laym en, t h e l a t t e r t o be s e l e c te d f o r t h e i r s p e c ia li z e d t r a i n i n g and t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r t h e ca se t o be t r i e d ; (3 ) a J u ry composed e n t i r e l y o f e x p e r ts i n s te a d o f b e in g composed o f p e r s o n s s e l e c te d a t random ; (4 ) p a r t i c i p a t i o n by t h e Judge i n t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s o f t h e J u ry , he t o be en­ t i t l e d t o J u s t one v o te ; and (5) t h e a s s e s s o r sy stem w hich

259

c o n te m p la te s making ju r y s e r v i c e a p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r e e r o f a somewhat p r o f e s s i o n a l n a tu re * I n th e m a tte r o f p ro c e d u re in c o u r t, t h e r e seems t o have b een c o n s id e r a b le w a ste o f tim e t o t h e e x a m in a tio n o f p r o s p e c tiv e j u r o r s on t h e i r v o i r d i r e » Under t h e pow ers g iv e n t o t h e judge in t h e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re , t h a t s i t u a t i o n sh o u ld im prove*

Then t h e r e i s th e lu d ic r o u s

p r a c t i c e o f r e q u i r i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f o r h i s c o u n s e l t o re a d th e c o m p la in t t o t h e j u r y i n s t e a d o f h a v in g him t e l l th e ju r y In j u s t o r d in a r y la n g u ag e what th e is s u e s i n t h e c a se a r e , o r b e t t e r s t i l l , have t h e ju d g e e x p la in th e c a se t o th e ju r y , th e r e b y g iv in g them an i m p a r t i a l p re v ie w o f what th e y m ight ex p ect* The sy stem o f r e c e i v i n g te s tim o n y i n c o u rt i s a n t i ­ q u a te d , a ls o *

The i n t e r r o g a t i v e form o f exam ining w itn e s s ­

e s sh o u ld be tre m e n d o u sly m o d ifie d i f n o t e n t i r e l y d i s c a r d ­ e d , and t h e r e sh o u ld b e s u b s t i t u t e d f o r i t th e c o n tin u o u s n a r r a t i v e form ; t h a t i s t h e manner i n w hich men communicate th o u g h t t o each o th e r i n o r d in a r y m a tte r s o f l i f e —why n o t I n th e c o u r t room?

A b u s in e s s c o n fe re n c e would a c c o m p lish

n o th in g i f i t were l i m i t e d t o th e i n t e r r o g a t i v e form*

Even

i f th e i n t e r r o g a t i v e form i s r e t a i n e d , th e r u l e s o f ev id e n c e s h o u ld b e r e v is e d t o p re v e n t what has been c a ll e d s la p -b a n d , r o a r i n g - b u l l t a c t i c s o f c o u n s e l y apping a t each o th e r* C o n c lu s io n s . The c o n c lu s io n s w hich fo llo w from th e

260 p re m ise s p o s t u l a t e d i n th e p re c e d in g c h a p te r s a r e th e f o l ­ lo w in g : (1 ) Law, f o r t i f i e d by an e n f o r c in g ag en cy , i s a s in e qua non o f c i v i l i z a t i o n * ( 2 ) much o f th e c r i t i c i s m o f o u r j u d i c i a l a d m in is­ t r a tio n o f ju s tic e i s ju s tifia b le * i

(3 ) T here can be no d is p u te t h a t freed o m o f th e j u d i c i a r y and I t s c o n se q u en t e q u a l i t y o f j u s t i c e i s th e d e s id e ra tu m o f o u r j u d i c i a l sy ste m . (4 ) P u b lic b p in io n d o es have a s tr o n g i n tim i d a t i n g i n f lu e n c e on some j u d i c i a l d e c is i o n s , an in f lu e n c e w hich i s t o be r e g r e t t e d . (5 ) Ju d g es who p e r i o d i c a l l y must f a c e r e - e l e c t i o n by p o p u la r v o te a r e l i k e l y t o be in tim id a te d by t h a t c i r ­ cu m stan ce, and l i f e - t e n u r e ju d g es may become to o i n d i f f e r ­ e n t to w ard p u b l i c o p in io n , o r even become c o r r u p t ; t h e r e ­ f o r e , a compromise betw een th e two e x tre m e s I s i n d i c a t e d . ( 6 ) The f i r s t im p o rta n t s te p to w ard im proving th e j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s tr a t i o n o f j u s t i c e i s t o d e v is e m ethods f o r s e l e c t i n g ju d g e s w hereby o n ly th e m ost com petent men would be o b ta in e d f o r j u d i c i a l o f f i c e . (7) J u d i c i a l o f f i c e sh o u ld be made a t t r a c t i v e enough t o In d u ce com petent men t o a s p i r e t o i t a s a c a r e e r , r a t h e r th a n t o have j u d i c i a l o f f i c e lo o k ed upon a s m e re ly an i n t e r ­ lu d e In th e p r a c t i c e o f law o r t h e h o ld in g o f p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e .

261

( 8 ) Com petent ju d g e s sh o u ld be r e ta in e d i n o f f i e e a s lo n g a s th e y rem ain co m p eten t, b u t sh o u ld be r e t i r e d a s soon a s th e y become in c o m p e te n t. (9 ) The grow ing c o m p le x ity o f modern l i f e and o f law i t s e l f i s c r e a t i n g an e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g demand f o r ju d g e s who a r e e d u c a te d i n l e g a l h i s t o r y , i n l e g a l s c i e n c e * and in th e p h ilo s o p h y o f la w and who have had a w ide e x p e rie n c e i n th e p r a c t i c e o f la w . (1 0 ) The w eig h t o f in fo rm ed o p in io n i s a g a in s t th e method o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g es p e r i o d i c a l l y by p o p u la r v o te i n t h e same m anner t h a t o th e r p u b lic o f f i c i a l s a r e e l e c t e d . ( 1 1 ) No s t a t e h as an a p p o in tiv e method o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g es w hich m ight be a d o p te d i n i t s e n t i r e t y a s a p a t t e r n f o r an i d e a l sy stem f o r o t h e r s t a t e s , b u t most s t a t e s have some f e a t u r e s i n t h e i r method o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g e s w hich commend th e m s e lv e s f o r e a r n e s t c o n s i d e r a tio n . (12) I t i s n o t l i k e l y t h a t an y p e r f e c t sy stem o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g e s e v e r w i l l be fo u n d , b u t m ost s t a t e s co u ld im prove t h e i r m ethods, and t h e t r e n d i s tow ard some form o f w e ll^ g tia rd e d a p p o in tiv e m ethod. f l 3 ) An e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e o f any w e ll-g u a rd e d method o f s e l e c t i n g ju d g e s by a p p o in tm e n t i s t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l power o f n o m in a tin g c a n d id a te s m ust n o t be p la c e d in th e same p e rs o n o r ag en cy w hich h a s th e f i n a l a p p o in tiv e a g e n c y . (1 4 ) E v ery j u d i c i a l sy stem sh o u ld have a m ethod f o r

262

t h e v o lu n ta r y r e tir e m e n t o f ju d g e s on a r e ti r e m e n t p e n sio n and a m ethod f o r th e sp ee d y in v o lu n ta r y rem o v al o f

ju d g es

who have become in co m p eten t o r c o r r u p t. (15) The impeachment m ethod f o r rem oving c o r ru p t ju d g e s i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ; however*1, i t sh o u ld n o t be d is c a r d e d . I t sh o u ld be supplem ented by a l e s s cumbersome and a more e f f i c i e n t m ethod. (16} The b e s t p la n f o r rem oving u n f i t ju d g e s from th e b en ch i s t h e p e r io d i c su b m issio n o f th e incum bent ju d g e fs r e c o r d t o th e e l e c t o r a t e f o r a p p ro v a l o r d is a p p r o v a l by h av in g them v o te m e re ly on w h eth e r o r n o t t h e judge i s t o be c o n tin u e d i n o f f i c e , w ith no o pposing c a n d id a te s a p p e a rin g a g a in s t him a t th e same e l e c t i o n . (1 7 ) The n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e r u l e s o f c o u r t p ro c e d u re i s second o n ly t o th e need f o r o b ta in in g t h e m ost a b le men f o r j u d i c i a l o f f i c e In o rd e r t o make Am erican j u s t i c e a s n e a r l y p e r f e c t a s i s hum anly p o s s i b l e . (18) The ru le -m a k in g power I s in h e r e n t i n th e c o u rt , b u t even i f i t w ere n o t , t h a t power can be t r a n s f e r r e d by l e g i s l a t i v e en actm en t from th e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e c o u r ts and such s t a t u t e s v i o l a t e no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s . (19} I n th e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re th e s p i r i t d o es n o t conform t o th e l e t t e r o f th e r u l e s ; and t o b r in g ab o u t t h e d e s ir e d c o n fo rm ity , th e t r i a l c o u r t sh o u ld be g iv e n p le n a r y pow ers t o r e l a x o r suspend an y r u l e i n o r d e r

263

t o advance j u s t i c e i n a c a se w here i t s h a l l be m a n ife s t t o / t h e c o u r t t h a t a s t r i c t a d h e re n c e t o th e r u l e s would r e s u l t i n s u r p r i s e o r in ju ry * (20) Modern p r e - t r i a l p r a c t i c e u n d er t h e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re i s s u b s t i t u t i n g in fo rm a l c o n fe re n c e s r a t h e r th a n co m bative t r i a l p ro c e d u re f o r s e ttle m e n t o f d is p u te s w h e r e v e r c th a t i s p o s s i b l e , th e r e b y ns tr e a m lin in g " th e j u d i ­ c i a l a d m i n i s tr a t i o n o f j u s t i c e and b r in g in g i t i n t o conform ­ i t y w ith th e p r e s e n t day t r e n d f o r common se n se b u s in e s s m ethods a s w e ll a s m eetin g th e current^dem and f o r e f f i c i e n c y and economy. (21) The changed p r e - t r i a l a s w e ll a s t r i a l p r a c t i c e and p ro c e d u re s r e s u l t i n g from t h e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c e d ­ u r e , w ith t h e i r co n seq u en t p e n a liz in g o f o b s t r u c t i v e t a c ­ t i c s , i s rem oving t h e c h ic a n e ry from th e p r a c t i c e o f law and I s d is c o u ra g in g th e u se o f th e c o u r ts a s a means o f i n t im i d a t io n f o r t h e p u rp o se o f e x t r a c t i n g money b y th e b r i n g in g , o r t h e t h r e a t e n i n g t o b r i n g , a n u is a n c e c a s e . (22) The changed p r e - t r i a l p ro c e d u re i s more r e v o lu ­ t i o n a r y th a n t h e changed t r i a l p ro c e d u re u n d e r t h e new r u l e s o f c i v i l p ro c ed u re* (23) The m ost o b v io u s d e f e c ts in th e j u d i c i a l a d m in is­ t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e w hich s t i l l p e r s i s t in s p i t e o f a l l t h a t h a s been acco m p lish ed i n r e c e n t y e a rs a r e th e o b s o le te method o f ta lc in g te s tim o n y and t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s o f o u r j u r y s y s te m --

264

c o n d itio n s w hich a r e c a r r y - o v e r s from a s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l o r d e r t h a t c e n tu r ie s ago ce ased t o e x i s t . (24J ETone o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s o f o u r d e m o c ra tic form o f governm ent seem t o have been c a r r i e d t o such r i d i c u l o u s ex tre m e s a s o u r j u r y sy ste m . (25) The p r i n c i p a l d e f e c t s o f o u r j u r y sy stem a r e th e r e s t r i c t i o n s p la c e d upon th e ju d g e s i n some j u r i s d i c t i o n s and th e p r o h i b i t i o n s in o th e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s ( in c lu d in g A rizona} a g a in s t th e judge commenting on th e e v id e n c e t o t h e j u r y and t h e a lm o st t o t a l lacfc o f p r o v is io n s in th e law d i r e c t e d to w ard o b ta in in g ju r o r s q u a l i f i e d t o m eet th e r e ­ s p o n s i b i l i t i e s p la c e d upon them . (26) A lth o u g h t h e ju r y sy stem n ee d s a com plete o v e r­ h a u lin g , th e ju r y sh o u ld be r e ta i n e d a s one o f o u r Am erican i n s t i t u t i o n s b e c a u se i t som etim es s e r v e s a s a p r o t e c t o r a g a i n s t th e i n j u s t i c e t h a t m ight a r i s e from a p u r e ly l e g a l ­ i s t i c d e c is io n and b e c a u se t h e mere e x is te n c e o f th e ju r y sy stem h as a wholesome in f lu e n c e on many p e o p le who a r e p ro n e t o lo o k upon th e c o u r ts and t h e law in g e n e r a l w ith d is tru s t. (27) T hat in s p i t e o f th e p r o g r e s s made in th e im provem ent o f t h e j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s tr a ti o n o f j u s t i c e , e s p e c i a l l y d u rin g th e p a s t t h r e e y e a r s , t h e r e i s much room f o r f u r t h e r im provem ent an d , s in c e th e o b je c ti v e o f th e j u d i c i a l sy stem i s t o s e c u re th e j u s t , sp e e d y , and in e x p e n -

265 s iv e d e te r m in a tio n o f e v e ry a c t i o n , t h e r e sh o u ld be no r e l a x a t i o n o f e f f o r t t o m a in ta in a c o n s ta n t p ro c e s s o f im­ provem ent in A m erican j u s t i c e . Xf anywhere in t h i s t h e s i s t h e r e may have c r e p t in a w ord, o r even j u s t a s i n g l e n o te tin g e d w ith th e s l i g h t e s t sh ad e o f in t o le r a n c e o r p e ssim ism , w h eth e r t h a t be to w ard a p e r s o n , th e j u d i c i a l sy stem , o r any p a r t o f our p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l o r d e r , o r any o f o u r i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h a t p o s s ib l e s u g g e s tio n o f i n t o le r a n c e o r p e ssim ism would n o t be a t r u e r e f l e c t i o n o f th e s p i r i t o f th e i n v e s t i g a t o r .

A ll c r itic is m s

made h e r e i n have been i n t h e s p i r i t o f c o n s tr u c tiv e n e s s and n o t d e s tru c tiv e n e s s , a s p i r i t

f i r e d by th e z e a l o f a c ru s a d e r

i n a movement t h a t h a s cau g h t th e im a g in a tio n and become a p a r t o f th e in v e s tig a to r f

T o le ra n c e and optim ism have

p erm eated th e th o u g h ts and s p i r i t even th o u g h a t tim e s i t may a p p e a r o th e rw is e due t o f a u l t y d i c t i o n o r in a c c u ra c y o f e x p r e s s io n .

The i n v e s t i g a t o r *s a t t i t u d e i s r e f l e c t e d i n th e

w ords o f C h a rle s Edward B u s s e ll: Ho, n e v e r t e l l me t h e w o rld grow s w orse o r s ta n d s s till. I t grows alw ays b e t t e r * Hot s w i f t l y , n o t w ith an even m otion o r p r o g r e s s , n o t a s im p a tie n t men d e s i r e i t t o im prove. S t i l l , i t grows b e t t e r . 1

^ C h a rle s Edward R u s s e l l , "T h is Mad-House World I s G e ttin g B e t t e r . " The R e a d e rr s D i g e s t, 3XHT (J a n u a ry , 1 9 5 4 ), 3 , condensed from S c r ib n e r *s.M agazine *

266

IF I WERE A JUDGE I f I w ere a ju d g e , i t seems t o me, I would s t r i v e my l e v e l b e s t t o be Humane, b u t u p r i g h t , j u s t b u t k in d , M eeting a l l p ro b lem s w ith open m ind; H e a rin g w ith p a t i e n c e , from day t o day T r i a l s o f Humans, who p a sse d my way. I w ould g r a n t no f a v o r s t o r i c h o r g r e a t , T hat w ere n o t t h e due o f t h e i r j u s t e s t a t e ; Nor would I w ith h o ld from th e hum bles s la v e The f u l l e s t j u s t i c e —t h a t I m ight sav e Or keep o r h o ld my p la c e o f power F or a s i n g l e d ay o r a s i n g l e h o u r. I f I w ere a ju d g e , I would keep In m ind, T hat th e p u r e s t j u s t i c e i s alw ays b l i n d , And t h a t no d i s t i n c t i o n ’tw ix t h ig h o r low Does t h e Goddess o f J u s t i c e n o te o r know, And no m o rta l man be he s e r f o r k in g , Would c a u se me t o sw erv e, n o r t o g r a n t a th in g T hat I sh o u ld w ith h o ld , i f I knew I s h o u ld , B ecause I th o u g h t he was bad o r good; F o r no man i s so b a d , and none i s so p u r e , T hat we can be a b s o l u t e l y s u re T hat t h e r e i s n ’t some v i r t u e , o r t a i n t o f s i n Mixed up w ith t h e o th e r s id e o f him . I f I w ere a ju d g e , ISd remember, to o , T hat when l i f e i s o v er--m y la b o r s th ro u g h , I , t o o , must s ta n d a t t h e judgment s e a t , And th e God o f J u s t i c e be fo rc e d t o m eet, And I ’d want t o f e e l on t h a t g r e a t d ay , T hat none o f u s know, i s so f a r away, T hat t h e Lord o f Heaven co u ld sa y t o me: ”Your work was done in s i n c e r i t y , Tho’ y o u ’ve made m is ta k e s , y e t I know y o u ’ve t r i e d , To be alw ay s and e v e r, on j u s t i c e ’ s s id e And b e c a u se o f t h a t , a l l e l s e I s f o r g iv e n , g And we welcome you t o t h e C ourt o f H eav en .”

2

Hugh R. P o r t e r , ”I f I Were a J u d g e .” D o c k e t, IT (November, 1 9 3 2 ), 3557.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

BIBLIOGRAPHY A.

BOOKS

A n g e ll, E r n e s t, Supreme c o u r t P rim e r. H itc h c o c k , 1 937. 157 p p ,

New York: R ey n al and

B a te s , E rn e s t S u th e rla n d , The S to r y o f th e Supreme C o u rt. I n d i a n a p o li s : The B o b b s -M e rrill Company, 1936. 377 p p . B eard , C h a rle s A ., A m erican Government and P o l i t i c s . Y ork: The M acm illan Company, 1912. 772 p p. , A m erican Government and P o l i t i c s . M acm illan C o m p an y ,1931. 831 p p .

New

New Y ork: The

B e v e rid g e , A lb e rt J . , The S ta t e o f th e N a tio n . The B o b b s -M e rrill Company, 1924. 276 p p .

I n d i a n a p o li s :

B i e r s t a d t , Edward H ale , C u rio u s T r i a l s & C rim in a l C ases. Garden C ity , New Y ork: C arden C ity p u b lis h in g Company, I n c o r p o r a te d , 1928. 567 p p. C ardoza, B enjam in N ., The N a tu re o f th e j u d i c i a l P r o c e s s . New H aven: Y ale U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , l 9 2 l . 186 p p . C a rp e n te r, W illiam S . , J u d i c i a l Tenure in th e u n ite d S t a t e s . New Haven: Y ale U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , 1918. 234 p p . C la rk , W illiam L aw rence, E le m e n ta ry Law. New Y ork: The Am erican Book Company, 1919 . 496 p p . Cohen, F e l i x S . , E t h i c a l System s and L e g a l I d e a l s . No a d d re s s p f p u b l i s h e r g iv e n s The F a lc o n P r e s s , c1933. 303 p p . D illa v o u , E ss e l R. and C h a rle s G. Howard, P r i n c i p l e s o f B u s in e s s Law, Second r e v is e d e d i t i o n ; New Y ork: P r e n t l c e H a ll, I n c . , 1 940. 990 p p . F e i n s t e i n , I s i d o r , The C ourt D is p o s e s . F r i e d e , 1937. 127 p p .

New Y ork: C o v ic i

H a in e s, C h a rle s G rove, A Government o f Laws o r a Government o f Men. Los A n g e le s: The U n iv e r s ity o f C a li f o r n i a a t Los A n g e le s, U n iv e r s ity o f C a l i f o r n i a P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , 1929. 38 p p .

369 H a in e s , C h a rle s Grove and B e rth a Moser H a in e s, P r i n c i p l e s and P roblem s o f G overnm ent. Hew Y ork: H arper and B r o th e r s . ISSfcSSSTppT----------------___________ , P r i n c i p l e s and Problem s o f G overnm ent. Hew Y ork: H arp er and B ro th e rs ^ 1 9 3 4 . 643 p p . Lummus, H enry T . , The T r i a l Ju d g e . P r e s s , I n c . , 1937. 149 p p .

C h icag o : The F o u n d atio n

M a rtin , Edward M., The R61e o f th e B ar in E l e c tin g t h e Bench i n C h icag o . C hicago 7 T h ~ ( J n iv e r s ity o f C hicago P re ss* ISS87 T®5 pp. Maxey, C h e s te r G ., The A m erican P roblem o f G overnm ent. Y ork: F . S . C r o f ts and Company, 1935. 6 $3 p p .

Hew

M errtam , C h a rle s Edward, The W ritte n C o n s titu tio n and th e U n w ritte n A t t i t u d e . Hew Y ork; R ich ard R. S m ith , I n c . , 1931. 89 p p . P e a rs o n , Drew and R o b ert S . A lle n , The N ine Old Men. Garden C ity , Hew Y ork: D oubleday, Doran and' Company, I n c . , 1936. 335 p p . P o llo c k , James K ., e d i t o r , R eadings in Am erican Governm ent. New Y ork: Henry H o lt and Company7’7L$£V. 2>f>4 p p . R ic h a rd s o n , D orsey, C o n s t i t u t i o n a i D o c trin e s o f J u s t i c e O liv e r W endell Holmes." B a ltim o re : The Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1924. 1 0 5 p p . S m ith , R eg in ald H eber, J u s t i c e and th e P o o r. New Y ork: The C arn e g ie F o u n d a tio n f o r th e Advancement o f T ea ch in g , 1919. 271 p p . S p e n c e r, Edward W., A Manual o f Commercial Law. F o u rth e d i t i o n ; I n d i a n a p o l i s : The“b o b b s -M e m ill Company, 1934. 736 p p . S p e n c e r, W illiam Homer, A Textbook o f Law and B u s in e s s . Hew Y ork: McGraw-HilX Book Company, I n c . , 1938. 1X32 p p . S w itz e r, M aurice, M aking th e G rade. S p r in g f ie ld T ir e Company,- 1922.

Hew Y ork: 92 p p .

K e lly

W ilk in , R o b ert N ., The S j i r i t o f th e L e g a l P r o f e s s i o n . Haven: Y ale U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , 1938. 176 p p .

Hew

W illoughby, W. F . , P r i n c i p l e s o f J u d i c i a l A d m in is tr a tio n . W ashington: The B ro o k in g s I n s t i t u t i o n , 19 2 9 . 662 p p . B.

PERIODICAL ARTICLES

Adams, H al W., "A pply B u sin e ss Methods i n Making up I s s u e ." J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XXII (December, 1938}, 1 6 4 -6 5 . A nderson, W illia m H ., "The S e le c tio n o f J u d g e s ." The S ta te Bar J o u r n a l o f C a l i f o r n i a , IX (Ju n e , 1 9 5 4 ), 139-41 and 157-601 B ak er, Newton D ., "The S e le c tio n and Tenure o f Judges in O hio. The U n iv e r s ity o f C in c in n a ti Law Review , V III (November, 1 9 3 4 ), 3 5 9 -4 8 9 . B a rk d u ll, Howard L . , " A n a ly s is o f Ohio Vote on A p p o in tiv e J u d ic ia r y ." Journal o f th e American Ju dicature S o c ie ty , XXII (February, 19&9} ,~T9’7^J8l B ellam y, F r a n c is R u fu s, "G entlem en o f th e J u r y ." D ig e s t, XXIV (F e b ru a ry , 1934}, 7 1 -7 6 .

R eader*s

B lo u n t, G. D e x te r, "Im p roving th e A d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s t i c e . " A m erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n J o u r n a l, XXVTI (March, 1 9 4 1 ), 1 5 8 -1 6 0 . B rand, George E ., "M ichigan S t a t e B ar*a Work f o r J u d i c i a l A p p o in tm en t." J o u r n a l o f th e Am erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c i e t y , XXII (F e b ru a ry , 19S9J, 1 9 9-202. " C a l i f o r n i a C rusade f o r S e le c tio n R efo rm ." J o u rn a l o f th e Am erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XIX (A u g u st, 1935},““3 0 -5 2 . U nsigned a r t i c l e . " C a l i f o r n i a V o te rs C onfirm Judges* T e n u re ." J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d i c a t u r e S o c ie t y , XXII (F e b ru a ry , 193977 2 0 2-203. U nsigned a r t i c l e . C ard o za, B enjam in N ath an , c i t e d by Jo se p h P e r c iv a l P o l la r d in "Mr. J u s t i c e C a rd o z a ." D o ck et, IV (S p rin g i 1 9 3 4 ), 36763680; r e p r i n t o f a r t i c l e from A m erican M ercury, (F e b ru a ry , 1 9 3 4 ). r"~ C h afee, Z e c h a ria h , " L ib e r a l T rends i n th e Supreme C o u rt." C u rre n t H i s t o r y , XXXV (December, 1 9 3 1 ), 338-344,

m . Cummings, Homer, A tto rn e y -G e n e ra l, "Im m ed ia te P roblem s f o r th e B a r ." D ocket, IV (Autumn, 1 9 3 4 ), 8697-3701. D e t r o i t S a tu rd a y N i g h t ,(1 9 2 9 ), J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e f o 'c l e i y , XIV (A p H r;" T 5 3 IT ,“T 79:— cTFeT in th e f o o t n o t e , " F r o n t i e r s o f L e g a l Aid W ork." The A nnals o f th e A m erican Academy o f P o l i t i c a l and SociaX S c ie n c e , CUY~( S ep t em ber, 19 3 9 ), G lueck, S h e ld o n , "The S o c i a l S c ie n c e s and S c i e n t i f i c Method i n t h e A d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s t i c e . " The Annans o f th e A m erican Academy o f P o l i t i c a l and S o c ia l S c ie n c e , CLXVll (May, 19337T 1 0 6 -1 1 8 . Gordon, H arry A ., quoted i n an u n sig n e d a r t i c l e , " S e le c tin g Ju d g es In L arge C i t i e s . " J o u r n a l o f t h e Am erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XIV (F e b ru a ry , 1931}", I55*r58. G ra n t, J . A. C ., "M ethods o f J u r y S e l e c t i o n ." N otes on J u d i c i a l O rg a n iz a tio n and P ro c e d u re , W a lter F* Dodd, e d i t o r , i n A m erican P o l i t i c a l S c ie n c e Be v iew , XXIV (F e b ru a ry , l 9 $ 0 ) , 1 1 7 -1 3 3 . G reen, L eon, c i t e d by u n sig n e d a r t i c l e , "Would D eth ro n e B la c k s to n e ." The Summons, I I (S p rin g , 1 9 3 0 ), 18319. Gup, Abe L . , "P roblem s on B n te r in g Law P r a c t i c e . " S tu d e n t, XV (May, 1 9 3 8 ), 6 - 7 .

The Law “

H a in e s , C h a rle s G rove, "The G e n e ra l S tr u c tu r e o f C ourt O r g a n iz a tio n ." The A d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s t i c e i n The A nnals o f t h e A m erican Academy o f P o l i t i c a l and S o c ia l S c ie n c e , CLXVII (May, 1 9 3 3 ), 1 -IX . H a ll, James P a r k e r , "The S e le c t i o n o f J u d g e s ." J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , I I I (A ugust, l 9 l $ ) H earn . Thomas H ., " I O b le c t." The S t a t e B ar J o u r n a l o f C a l i f o r n i a , T i l (May, 1932)7To3T=I0S.----------------------"Ju d g e s and P o l i t i c s i n Los A n g e le s ." J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c i e t y , XVTI (O c to b er, 1933} 9 1 -9 2 . C itin g Raymond H o ley . J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , I (Ju n e , 19 1 7 ), o u ts id e f r o n t c o v e r. A d e c l a r a t i o n o f th e p u rp o se o f t h e S o c ie ty , u n s ig n e d .

K a le s , A lb e rt M ., "M ethods o f S e le c t i n g and R e t i r i n g J u d g e s ." J o u r n a l o f t h e Am erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XI (F e b ru a ry , 1928}, 1 3 3 -4 4 . ~ K a te s , P h i l i p , " J u d i c i a r y Must Conquer I n f e r i o r i t y Com plex." J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c i e ty , X T III (December, 1 9 5 4 ), 119*125. K ocourek, A l b e r t, ^Speedy J u s t i c e i n A n cie n t Rome." J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , T (December, l 9 2 l ) , Lowe, C h a rle s A ., Ju d g e, "How To Keep L i t i g a t i o n in th e C o u rts ." J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , X F III ( O c to b e r, l9 3 ¥ )T ^ O ^ T l _________, q u o ted i n J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e ” S o c ie ty , XYII (F e b ru a ry , HE9S4) , 153. Lummus, H enry T . , "Our H e rita g e o f I m p a r ti a l J u s t i c e . " J o u rn a l o f t h e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XXII r i p r i r ; 155577 ^ McCormick, C h a rle s T ., " J u d i c i a l S e l e c t i o n — C urent P la n s and T re n d s ." I l l i n o i s Law R eview , XXX (Decem ber, 1 9 3 5 ), 446—4 6 8 . P e r r y , S t u a r t H ., " J u d i c i a r y and th e P r e s s . " J o u r n a l o f th e Am erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XVI (Decem ber, 1932) ,

tob - i i y ;

--------------- *

, " P o l i t i c s and J u d i c i a l A d m in is tr a tio n ." J o u rn a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , X 7II (F e b ru a ry , 1 9 5 4 ), I3 3 -I3 9 T P i l l s b u r y , W arren H ., "TJ. S. Supreme C ourt and th e S e n a te ." The Summons, I I (Autumn, 1 9 5 0 ), 385. " P o l i t i c a l Dependence o f Judges in F r a n c e ." J o u rn a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XXI (A u g u st, TS'SF), 4X -44. U nsigned a r t i c l e . P o l la r d , Jo sep h P e r c i v a l , "Mr. J u s t i c e C ard o n a." D ocket, IT (S p rin g , 1 9 3 4 ), 3676-5680. R e p rin t o f a r t i c l e from Am erican M ercury (F e b ru a ry , 1 9 3 4 ). P o r t e r , Hugh R ., " I f I Were a J u d g e ." 1 9 3 S ), 3549-3570.

D o ck et, IT (November,

2 73 " P r e - T r i a l P ro c e d u re —F ran ce and Germ any." J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XXI (O c to b er, 193*7}, 8 3 -8 4 . " P r e - T r i a l P ro c e d u re Adopted f o r B o s to n ." J o u r n a l o f th e Am erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XIX (Ju n e, 1 9 3 5 ], 1 1 -1 2 . R i i s , R. W., "The J u ry N u is a n c e ." (F e b ru a ry , 1 9 3 8 ), 6 5 -6 6 .

R eader*s D ig e s t,. XXXII

R u s s e l l, C h a rle s Edward, "T h is Mad-House World i s G e ttin g B e tte r * " R e a d e r s D ig e s t, XXIV (J a n u a ry , 1 9 3 4 ), 1 - 5 . Condensed from S c rib n e r *s M agazine. S h a r t e l , B urke, "R etirem e n t and Removal o f J u d g e s ." Jo u rn a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XX (December, 1 9 3 6 ], 1 5 3 -1 5 3 . Sweeney, George G ., "E x p e rt u se o f P r e t r i a l D ocket in F e d e r a l C o u r t." J o u r n a l o f th e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , X X III (J u n e , 1939}, l l i l S . "T ry in g Law S u i t s W ithout Y a p p in g ." J o u rn a l o f t h e Am erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , XIX (F e b ru a ry , 1936} ,nT557~IJhs’I gned a r t i c l e q u o tin g Thomas H. H earn • Wembridge, E le a n o r Rowland, "Em otions in th e C ourt-R oom ." The A m erican M ercury, XVII (May, 1 9 2 9 ), 4 8 -5 3 . Wigmore, John H ., "A New Way t o Nom inate Supreme C ourt J u d g e s ." J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erican J u d ic a tu r e S o c ie ty , ' XXII (FebruaryV l 9 3 9 l , ^ 7 - 1 0 6 7 ”-----Wood, John Perry, cited by unsigned article, "Approved Principles for Selecting Judges." Journal of the American Judicature Society, XX (April, 1937*17 244-45.

W yckoff, H ubert C ., "A M essage from t h e P r e s i d e n t —The A d m in is tr a tio n o f J u s t i c e . " C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e B ar J o u r n a l, IX (F e b ru a ry , 1 9 3 4 ), 3 6 -3 8 . C.

PARTS OF SERIES

B e v e rid g e , A lb e r t J . , The L if e o f John M a rs h a ll, 4 v o l s . ; B o sto n : H oughten, M i f f l i n Company, 1916-1919. Vols* I I I and IV . 644 and 6 6 8 p p . B ry c e , Jam es, The Am erican Commonwealth, 2 v o l s . ; New Y ork: The M acm illan Company, 1922. V ol. I . 745 p p .

274

C h a n d le r, W a lte r M ., The T r i a l s o f Jes&s from a Lawyer *s S ta n d p o in t> V o l. I I , The Roman T r i a l . 2 v o l s ; New York C ity : The F e d e r a l Book Company, 1925'. 406 pp* W arren, C h a rle s , The Supreme C ourt in U n ite d S t a t e s H is t o r y * 2 v o l s . ; B o sto n : L i t t l e , Brown, and Company, 1926. V o l. I . 814 p p . D. ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES "C o u rt* " The E n c y c lo p e d ia B r ita n n io a , 1 1 th e d i t i o n (1 9 1 0 ), 29 v o ls .; Vol. VIX, 3 2 2 -2 4 . Unsigned a r t ic le . " C o u rts —U n ited S t a t e s . " New S ta n d a rd E n c y c lo p e d ia , F rank H. V i z e t e l l y . e d i t o r ; 25 v o l s . , New Y ork: Funk & W ag n allf s Company, c1931, V o l. V I I I , 4 7 -4 8 . U nsigned a r t i c l e . E.

LAWS AND RULES OF COURT

C o n s t it u t i o n o f A riz o n a * R ev ised Code o f A riz o n a , 1928* Se s s io n Laws o f A riz o n a , F o u rte e n th L e g i s l a t u r e , R e g u la r S e s s io n , l i ’SlT R u le s of C i v il P ro c e d u re f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u rts o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s * W ashington: U n ite d S ta t e s Government P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , 1938. R u le s o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re f o r th e Sup e r i o r C o u rts o f A riz o n a . F h o e n lx : S t a t e B ar o f A riz o n a , 1940. Code o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re , S t a t e o f A riz o n a . S t a t e B ar Of A riz o n a , 1940.

P h o e n ix :

The Code o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re o f t h e S ta te o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1937. New M exico, Laws o f 1933.

275 F.

UNITED STATES--HEARINGS, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

H e a rin g s b e f o re t h e Subcom m ittee o f t h e Com mittee on th e J u d i c i a r y , U n ite d S t a t e s S e n a te , S i x t y - n i n t h C o n g ress, F i r s t S essio n * 2 v o l s . , W ashington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , 1926, 1 -1 6 6 0 . S e a rin g s b e f o re t h e Committee on th e J u d i c i a r y , House o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s , S e v e n t y - f i r s t C o n g ress, Second S essio n * 1 v o l . , W ashington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , 1950, 1 -1 5 2 6 . H earin g s b e f o re a S p e c ia l Committee on I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f B an k ru p tcy and R e c e iv e rs h ip P ro c e e d in g s in U n ite d S ta te s C o u rts , U n ite d S t a t e s S e n a te , S e v e n ty - th ir d C o n g ress, Second S essio n * 4 P a r t s , W ashington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , 1954, 1 -1 4 4 3 . H ea rin g s b e f o r e t h e Committee on t h e J u d i c i a r y , U n ited S t a t e s S e n a te , S e v e n t y - f i f t h C o n g ress, F i r s t S e s s io n . 6 P a rts , W ashington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , 1957, 1 -2 0 4 0 . O f f i c i a l R ecord o f t h e N a tio n a l Commission on Law O bservance and E n fo rcem en t, 5 v o l s . , W ashington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , 1 9 3 1 . V o l. V, 1 -7 6 1 . R ep o rt No. 1049, S e v e n ty - th ir d C o n g ress, Second S e s s io n , S e n a ie C alen d ar No. 1115. L e t t e r from Homer Cummings, A tto rn e y - G e n e r a l, t o th e H onorable H enry F* A s h u rs t, U n ited S t a t e s S e n a te . R ep o rt No. 814 ( p a r t s 1 and 2}, House o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s , S ev e n t y - f i f t h C o n g ress, F i r s t S e s s io n , May 14, 1957 and June 17, 1937. Document No. 610, S e n a te , S i x t y - t h i r d C o n g ress, Second S e s s io n . W ashington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , O ctober 21, 1914; W a lter C la rk , "Government by J u d g e s ." p . 4* C o n g re s s io n a l R eco rd , S e v e n t y - f if t h C o n g ress, F i r s t S e s s io n , House o f R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s ; T uesday, June 22, 1937, "A nother J u d i c i a l R eform ." E x te n s io n o f Remarks o f H onorable John R. Murdock, o f A riz o n a .

276

G.

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

B a rt I e , W illia m W., Memorandum t o S t a t e Chairm en on j u d i c i a l S e le c tio n and T en u re, J u n io r B ar C o n feren ce, A m erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n , 1 -4 2 ; an u n d ated Mimeograph* W insor, M u lfo rd , D i r e c t o r , "G rand and P e t i t J u r i e s in th e U n ited S t a t e s . " L e g i s l a t i v e B r i e f s , p re p a re d by th e S t a t e QArizona^ L e g i s l a t i v e B ureau, D epartm ent o f L ib r a r y and A rc h iv e s , P h o e n ix ; Ho* 4 {F ebruary 1 5 , 1 9 4 0 ), 1 -2 7 ; a Mimeograph* H. BAR ASSOCIATION REPORTS A nnual r e p o r t o f t h e Am erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n , C hicago: v o l.' 6&, 1938, 1 -1 1 6 3 . A m erican B ar A s s o c ia tio n , R e p o rts o f th e S e c tio n o f J u d i c i a l A d m in is tr a tio n t o be p re s e n te d a t th e A nnual M eetin g , J u l y 2 5 -2 7 , 1938, 1 -1 8 6 . F i r s t r e p o r t , Committee on P ro c e d u ra l Reform o f th e s t a t e o f A r iz o n a a n d t h e A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n cil ( J u ly 20, 1 9 3 4 ), 1 -1 5 . F i r s t r e p o r t o f t h e A rizo n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il, A p r i l , 1936,

r-$.

Second r e p o r t o f t h e A riz o n a J u d i c i a l C o u n c il, A p r i l , 1938,

I.

NEWSPAPERS

A riz o n a R e p u b lic jjP hoenixJ , A ugust 2 , 1934 t o A p r il 29, 1939. C lev elan d B ar J o u r n a l , O ctober 4 , 1935 t o November 1 , 1935. C le v e la n d P l a i n D e a le r , J u ly 25, 1938. The New York T im es, Ja n u a ry 27, 1933 t o A p r il 1 8 , 1936. P h o en ix [A riz o n a J G a z e tte , A ugust 2, 1934 t o A ugust 8 , 1941.

277 J . LAW CASES Bank o f U n ited S t a t e s v . H a ls te a d , 10 W heat. 5 1 -6 1 ; 6 Law. I d . 264-67 (F e b ru a ry Term, 1 8 2 5 ]. Ex p a r t e B u s h n e ll, 9 Ohio S t a t e 77 (1 8 5 9 ). C a p ita l T r a c tio n Co* v . H u ff, 174 Ui S . 1 . In r e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f S e c . 2 5 1 .1 8 , W isconsin S t a t u t e s , 204 W is. 501; 236 U. W. 717 (Hay, 1931) . i

F o rn a ra v . Wolpe, 26 A r iz . 383; 226 P . 203. G ro sje a n v . A m erican P r e s s Company, I n c . , 297 U. S . 233. H aybdrnf s C ase, 2 D a li. (U. S .) 409; 1 Law Ed. 4 3 6 . Hepburn v . G risw o ld , 8 W allace 603. H erron v . S o u th e rn P a c i f i c RailroadOCom pany, 283 U. S . 9 1. Knox v . L ee, 12 W allace 4 5 7 . L arso n v . Union In v e stm en t Company, 168 Wash. 5 ; 10 P . (2d) 557 ( A p r il, 1 9 3 2 ). M arbury v . M adison, 1 C ranch 137. Q u ercia v . U n ite d S t a t e s , 289 U. S . 466. S m ith v . H. E . A i r c r a f t Company, 170 H. E. 385. S o u th w est C o tto n Company v . Ryan, 199 P . 124 (A riz o n a , 1 9 2 1 ). S t a t e o f W ashington e x r e l . Foster-W yman Lumber Company v . The S u p e rio r C ourt f o r K ing C ounty, 148 Wash. 1 ; 267 P . 770 (May, 1 9 2 8 ). S t a t e v . P a v e lic h e t a l . , 153 Wash. 379; 279 P . 1102, (A ugust, 1 9 2 9 ). S t a t e v . Roy, 40 Hew Mex. R ep. 397; 60 P . (2d) 646 (A ugust, 1 9 3 6 ). S t a t e v . W illiam s e t a l . , 156 Wash. 6; 286 P . 65 (M arch, 1 9 3 0 ). Wayman v . S o u th ard # 10 W heat. (U .S .) 1 -5 0 ; 6 Law. E d. 253-64 (F e b rp a ry Term, 1 8 2 5 ). W hite v . M illio n , 175 Wash. 189; 27 P . (2d) 320 (Hovember, 1 9 3 3 ).