N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 558
judges," are not only judges of that court but members of the Court of Pardons, and in addition, they are permitted to practice law or engage in private business. That such multiplicity of function is unbusinesslike and results not only in diminution of judicial efficiency but delay in the disposition of the business of the courts is too obvious to require argument. Not only is a simplification of the judicial system essential; a simplification of the functions of each judge is needed.
The courts of New Jersey also suffer through the lack of a single responsible head. Thus, while the Chancellor is designated as the president judge of the Court of Errors and Appeals, because he is the Court of Chancery he cannot sit on appeals from his court. In such appeals, which comprise a substantial part of the work of that court, the court is presided over by the Chief Justice. Again, while the Chancellor has limited rights of supervision over the Vice-Chancellors and his Advisory Masters, he has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the numerous judges of the law courts. Neither has the Chief Justice, or even the entire Supreme Court for that matter, any substantial power of direction as to the work of the judges of the law courts. What is needed, therefore, to effect a businesslike administration of the courts is a single responsible executive head with competent administrative assistance. In this field the Federal courts with a Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts have set an example which the several States would do well to emulate.
Another matter in which the courts of New Jersey have lagged has been in the tradition of separate courts of law and equity, resulting frequently in resorting to two trial courts to dispose of a single controversy. Law and equity have long since been merged in every State except New Jersey and Delaware. In the United States courts under the Federal rules of civil procedure legal and equitable controversies are disposed of in a single case. A merger of law and equity in this State would tend to bring our practice in line with that of the Federal courts and other American jurisdictions.
A citizen when obliged to litigate is entitled to have his right to a speedy disposition of his case guaranteed by the constitution. The present constitution sets up no standards as to what constitutes a reasonable time within which to try a case or dispose of an appeal. There is no provision under the present constitution making it easy to send the judges where they are most necessary to relieve any congestion in litigation. Nor is there any provision for setting up temporarily appellate and trial courts when the work of either system of courts falls in arrears. Without the power in the Chief Justice to assign judges to areas where litigation is congested, and without any provision for setting up temporary special courts to meet emergen-
Previous Page in Book ********* Table of Contents *********** Next Page in Book