ORAL ARGUMENT-SUPREME COURT.
Mr. McMullen, from the same Committee, reported back Mr. Wiley's bill [H. R. 249] in relation to petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court.
Mr. WILEY explained that he introduced the bill by request.
The bill provides that the Supreme Court shall hear oral argument in cases, of appeals, and that the Judge rendering the original decision shall not be allowed to participate in the deliberations on such appeal. He has received a great many letters from lawyers who desired that the bill should become a law. It is a wholesome measure, and he felt that the bill should pass.
Mr. HEFFREN was opposed to the bill on the ground that it would consume too much time for the Court to stop and hear oral argument. Each lawyer would consume something near a week in his argument for appeal.
Mr. McMULLEN felt that the question of time should not be considdred where justice was at stake. He was opposed to allowing the Judge who had rendered the original decision to take part in the consideration of the appeals. He considered the spirit of the bill to be good, and favored recommitting the bill with the instruction that a docket fee or penalty be inserted in order to prevent annuals being taken in cases not having sufficient and reasonable grounds.
Mr. JEWETT favored oral argument before the Supreme Court. He did not accord any weight to the argument that it would consume the time of the Court. When per ons desire to come before the Supreme Court they should have that privilege. He moved that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions that the bill be amended as suggested by Mr. McMullen and reported back favorably.
Mr. WILSON, of Marion, was opposed to the bill. He thought the provision of the bill reflected on the Court.
Mr. Jewett's motion to recommit was agreed to.
