N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 317


STATE OF NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1947
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Tuesday, July 8, 1947 (Afternoon session)

of record, so that he presented to the appellate court actually only the questions involved. They have dispensed with the necessity of printing an entire record; that was the main cost of an appeal. Now the litigant may go up on the original record - in other words, the first record made in the trial court, which goes in toto to the appellate court. The appellant, however, reduces the issues to those he actually wants to raise. The entire record is made available to the Circuit Court of Appeals, should they care to review the entire record. That very often isn't necessary at all. It may go up to the court on one, two or three questions of law. The cost has been reduced. The expense of printing a whole record sometimes ran into thousands of pages.

MR. SOMMER: The whole burden of consideration of the rules, however, is not thrown upon the Supreme Court, because you have annual conferences with all the judges, don't you?

JUDGE SMITH: Yes. There is this about it, and I think that is a good thing to point out. The change in the rules - and this was also true of the adoption of the rules - is brought about only after a careful study by men experienced in the field.

When the rules were first contemplated, the tentative drafts were frequently submitted to the judges throughout the country and to lawyers. They were invited to make written criticism, and many judges availed themselves of that privilege, and did criticize. That was also true when we came to adopting the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The judiciary was canvassed, as was the bar. When the proposed changes were recommended, the committee that worked on them likewise submitted them to the judges and to the bar in most parts of the country, so that they received study before they were finally adopted. As Dean Sommer pointed out, the rules were submitted to the annual conferences of judges throughout the country. We are required by statute to meet once a year, and at that time we discuss the many problems that confront us in the administration of justice and the remedies we suggest to overcome the deficiencies that we find in our experience. We found that those conferences have likewise been very helpful.

You see, the changes are simple enough and are given the most careful study before they are made, but it doesn't require a vote of all the people of the country to effect a change, and that would be true if it were ever embodied in the constitutional amendments. That is the reason I suggested this morning that, insofar as the Constitution is concerned, it is my considered judgment that simplicity in the Judicial Article is important.

MR. HENRY W. PETERSON: May I say on that score, that to my layman's mind and having a fairly good experience in the courts, that while the simplicity of the Judicial Article in the


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