COMMISSIONERS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
The bill [S. 174] concerning the Supreme Court Commission for two years was read the third time.
Mr. McMULLEN thought that this bill ought not to pass. Since the bill was up the other day he had taken the time to examine the facts concerning this Supreme Court Commission and its work for the past two years. He found that the Supreme Court decided during the two years beginning January 1, 1879, and ending January 1, 1881, 1,251 cases, and that during the two years beginning January 1, 1881, and ending January 1. 1883, it has disposed of only 1,138 cases, or 113 cases less than for the same period of time before the Commission was appointed. The Commission has disposed of only 714 cases since appointed. Take from this the difference between 1,251 cases which the Supreme Court decided in two years before the Commission was appointed, and 1,138 cases which the Supreme Court has disposed of in two years since the Commission was appointed, and we find that th Supreme Court Commission has only disposed of 601 cases more than were disposed of by the Supreme Court. This Commission has proved rather an expensive luxury. He thought it should not be continued any longer; he was opposed to it.
Mr. TULEY believed it was admitted on all hands that something ought to be done to relieve the Supreme Court. According to the admission of the gentleman from Dearborn [Mr. McMullen] the number of cases has been greatly reduced. He thought the Commission had done well to dispose of 714 cases. A few years ago if you sent a case to the Supreme Court you knew it would keep it for three or four years since the Commission was appointed, he had known cases to be decided in three mouths The House had already decided upon the Court of Appeals. It has spoken in unmistakable terms that we do not want that Court. It is just this: we must have that Commission or nothing. He believed the people demand it, and that the Supreme Court demands; it under all circumstances he believed the bill should pass and continue this Commission for two years more
Mr. MOCK did not think we should determine the amount of work the Commission had done by the number of cases it had disposed of. The test he applied, and which he considered a fair one, is this: He was creditably informed that the number of volumes of Supreme Court Reports would greatly exceed the number issued during the year previous to the creation of this Commission. He considered this a just and fair test of the amount of work accomplished by this Commission. The difference between twenty-five volumes of the same size and number of pages and seventeen volumes, show the amount of work accomplished by this Commission. He believed that the Commission should be continued for two years, and trusted that the members would vote for this bill.
Mr. SHIVELY said: It seems to me that we should sometime awaken to the fact that Indiana has become a great State. It ought to occur to any man that the Supreme Court can not discharge this business without some assistance. It is burdened, and has been for a number of years. It is said this Commission has not done satisfactory work, but, notwithstanding this assertion, they have done good work. Now, will we so to work and defeat the bill for the establishment of a Court of Appeals and also refuse to continue this Commission. It seems to me that it ought not to be done. It has been stated that they bay only disposed of 714 cases. This is no test. They can and will work better in the next two year than in the past. Then, you can not determine the efficiency of the work by the number of cases. We should not refuse to continue this for the next two years.
Mr. MONTGOMERY thought it was a fact recognized by all members on the floor, he presumed, that the Supreme Court can not keep up with the business While this Commission may not have accomplished as much as was expected of it, yet something must be done for the relief of the Supreme Court, in order that it may catch up with its business, Ha thought this Commission should be continued two years longer.
Mr WILSON, of Marion, was in real earnestness in his opposition to this Supreme Court Commission. It might not be good policy on his part, but he was opposed to this bill
Mr. MOODY spoke in favor of the bill. He thought it was a matter of justice to the people that this Commission should be continued for the next two years, and therefore the question of expense raised by the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Wilson] should not be taken into consideration
Mr. JEWETT thought the question has been fully considered, and demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the House, and under the operations thereof-
The bill passed the House by yeas, 57; nays, 35.
