N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 714

LETTER OF THEODORE McC. MARSH, Esq.

Riker, Marsh & Scherer Counsellors at Law 744 Broad Street Newark 2, New Jersey MArket 3-1900 

July 1, 1947
 Mrs. Richard L. Miller 152 Beekman Road Summit, New Jersey

Dear Mrs. Miller:

This will acknowledge your courteous invitation to appear before the Judiciary Committee on July 3, 1947. I am leaving on July 2nd for a month's vacation in Wyoming so I shall be unable to take advantage of the opportunity extended me.

I think, however, that I can express my views in this letter perhaps more clearly and concisely than through a personal appearance.

  • 1. The ultimate aim and goal of all judicial procedure should be a speedy and just determination of litigation.  
  • 2. To accomplish this, procedural and jurisdictional questions should be eliminated as far as possible.  
  • 3. So long as separate constitutional courts exist, jurisdictional questions will be present in some of the causes. Many examples of delays and even of ultimate failure to attain a decision on the merits are to be found in the reports due to the fact the litigant or his counsel inadvertently select the wrong court in which to institute his action.  
  • 4. By setting up a single court with all-inclusive jurisdiction these questions will be eliminated and we will more nearly attain our goal. At the same time we will achieve the desired objective of reducing the cost of litigation.  
  • 5. The argument against a single court is based upon the premise that by having a Court of Chancery set apart by the Constitution the litigant will get a wiser and more just decision from a judge trained in the specialty. In answer to this I would urge:     
           
    •    a.   Equity is not an occult science or similar to specialty in medicine. Practically all lawyers in New Jersey practice both at law and in Chancery with no feeling or consciousness of any shortcomings in so doing.  
    •    b.   The ultimate dispenser of equity causes in the Court of Errors and Appeals and the judges have almost never been specialists in     

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