N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 102

Tuesday, July 1, 1947 (Morning session)

is profoundly true in this matter of the organization of the courts. Without some idea of its history, we can hardly understand what largely came to be in this country - its fundamental points.

Of course, we inherited the English judicial organization when it was at its worst. In the 17th Century, when a study of the organization of the courts was first instituted, it was established that there were 90 courts in England that had to be considered. Later, in 1873, when they reorganized the judicial system, those 90 courts became three, or you might say, in a sense, four.

Multiplication of the courts is a characteristic of beginnings everywhere, and even today we see the administrative organization moving in that same direction. Every time there is a new administrative problem, it is set up by an administrative agency. And our state legislature, every time there is some new type of case that arises, sets up a separate court.

I have been for nine years president of the National Probation Association, and I have had trouble in all those nine years persuading my friends on the board of trustees not to agree to a lot more courts, because when you have this multiplicity of courts you are eternally bothered with jurisdictional lines and jurisdictional questions, and every jurisdictional question is a waste of judicial power. It's a waste of time and money to the litigants.

The things that I think need to be avoided more than anything else in all judicial organization, are jurisdictional questions and multiplicity of excessive appeals. Those are the things that waste judicial power and are the things that cost the time and money of litigants. Those are the things also, I think, that have led in no small degree to the multiplication of administrative agencies - in the continual whittling away of the jurisdiction of courts in permitting this thing and that in the administrative agencies - where it is conceived, and I don't think it is rightly conceived, that you get speedier results. You will find that this all results in jurisdictional questions, and these multiplied result in excessive appeals.

Now, as to this coming pathway, we have to ask ourselves how it happened. When Lord Coke instituted his study he found 90 courts administering justice in England in the 17th Century. Well, there were certain courts that came down from before the Conquest, but the King's Court had superseded them in everything except local petty controversies. So they had a great system of inferior small cause courts, from the small beginning to the well-ordered county courts, of which I shall speak presently.

But in addition to that, the King's power to do justice very largely devolved upon the superior courts in Westminster, for historical reasons and geographical reasons, but their jurisdiction was limited. All probate, all matrimonial controversies, and the whole adminis-

Previous Page in Book ********* Table of Contents *********** Next Page in Book