Extensive powers of making rules and regulations governing practice and procedure and the operation of the courts and the carrying on of the administration of justice by the courts are vested in the Judicial Council. Assuming that the territorial plan of organization is adopted, this is composed of the Chief Justice, the Presiding Justices of the divisions of the Superior Court, the Presiding Justice of the County Courts, if he be a judge other than the Chief Justice; if not then one of the County Judges appointed by the Chief Justice; also a judge of the Court of Appeal and a Superior Court Judge appointed by the Chief Justice. This gives the Chief Justice great power in the Judicial Council, but requires him to act with the advice of others. If the functional plan of organization for the Superior Court be adopted the Chief Justice should be limited to the appointment of the judge-at-large from the judges of the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court.

All questions relating to the methods of selecting and retiring judges have been eliminated from this draft. Whatever scheme is adopted after a consideration of the views presented in Bulletin IV-A, can be. inserted in the present Act at the appropriate place.

Before such Act as is here presented could become a law, some revision of the Judicial article of the constitution would probably be necessary. It is not desired, however, to complicate the plan presented with any particular revision of the constitution. Possible constitutional changes are given after the draft of the Model Act. They are merely suggestive. No insistence is placed upon them. Any form of constitutional change which will permit the enactment of the Model Act here presented would serve as well.

DRAFT OF

AN ACT TO CREATE THE GENERAL COURT OF

JUDICATURE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE THEREIN.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of. Represented in the General Assembly, as follows:

PART I.

CONSTITUTION AND JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT OF JUDICATURE.

SECTION 1. Consolidation of Courts.] The following 2 courts [here name all the courts such as Supreme, Appel3 late, Circuit, Probate, County, Municipal and Justices of 4 the Peace in the state] shall be united and shall constitute 5 under and subject to the provisions of this Act, one Gen6 eral Court of Judicature for the state.

SECTION 2. Present judgeships not abolished but con2 tinued in the office of judge of the General Court of 3 Judicature.] Upon the expiration of the term of office of 4 the judges of [here name all the courts united by this 5 Act], said offices shall not be filled in the manner hitherto

6 provided by law, but the same shall be deemed filled by 7 such one or more of the judges of the General Court of 8 Judicature as may be entitled to exercise all or any part 9 of the jurisdiction or power heretofore exercised by the 10 judges of the courts united by this Act.

The effect of this section is to preserve and continue all the powers and acts, judicial and ministerial, which have existed under previous legislation. All such powers and acts are merged in this later Act. The existing offices are not abolished but are continued and filled in a new manner.

SECTION 3. General Court of Judicature to have sev2 eral permanent divisions.] The General Court of Judica3 ture shall consist of several permanent divisions, which 4 shall be known as follows: The Court of Appeal, the 5 Superior Court, and the County Courts. Each of the per6 manent divisions shall have and exercise the jurisdiction 7 hereinafter conferred by the Constitution and this Act, 8 or under the authority thereof, and that only.

The last words "and that only," operate to separate the appellate function from the trial function and to lodge appellate jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal and prevent its exercise by the Superior or County Courts, except in so far as that is expressly permitted. This is necessary because of the general theory that all the permanent divisions are parts of one unified court, with all judicial power and jurisdiction.

That part, however, of the jurisdiction of the Superior Court which is exercised by the County Court is still in the control of the

Judicial Council. (See Sec. 68.) The above section does not at all preclude the express grant of jurisdiction of the Superior Court to hear appeals from the County Courts. The provision for such appeals may be made by rules of Court.

SECTION 4. The judges of the General Court of Judi2 cature and the Chief Justice.] The judges of the General 3 Court of Judicature shall be the Chief Justice, the Jus4 tices of the Court of Appeal, the Judges of the Superior 5 Court, the County Judges and the Associate County 6 Judges.

It will be observed that by force of Sections 17, 32 and 73, post, the first judges of the General Court of Judicature will be the body of judges holding office at the taking effect of the Act. This may turn out to be a larger number of judges than are needed, since one of the objects of the organization proposed is to eliminate waste of judicial energy which now occurs as well as to secure increased efficiency. If it is clear that the judicial business of the State can be done by fewer judges then some provision for the reduction in the number of judges must be made. An automatic reduction at the time of the expiration of the terms of office of the first judges under this Act would bear hardly upon those judges, since it would certainly deprive some of them of any possibility of appointment at the end of their term. If it were provided that the number of judges of the Superior Court division should be automatically reduced to a given number and that such reduction should occur only upon the death or resignation of a judge holding office, it would cause the least friction. The error, if any, would at least be on the side of fairness to sitting judges.

Some objection has been made to constituting the Chief Justice the administrative head of the court, the ground being that he cannot perform the administrative and judicial duties placed upon him. The counter-suggestion has been made that the administra

tive head of the court should be a minister of justice or secretary of the executive department.

The directors have discarded this suggestion for the following

reasons:

It is important that there shall not be a divided headship. A Chief Justice of the court who was regarded by the public at least as a leader in the handling of judicial business in the working of the court would necessarily have ideas and responsibilities as to administrative regulations. To deprive such Chief Justice of the administrative headship and give it to one who was outside the counsels of the court in its daily work of deciding cases, would be to introduce an element of confusion and lack of co-operation.

The first duty of the Chief Justice obviously is to discharge his administrative functions and oversee the work of the court in general. If he be an elected officer his future hold upon his office will depend upon the performance of that duty. At the same time he is not barred from participating in the decision of cases both in the Court of Appeal and elsewhere. He may in his discretion take part in the judicial work of any branch of the court. This not only enables him to be in fact a member of the court in every sense, but may give him the experience necessary to determine what changes on administrative lines are advisable. If there is an outcry against the way any District Magistrates in any locality are doing their work, or against the County Court system, the Chief Justice can sit in place of the County Judge or District Magistrate for the purpose of finding out how those officers operate and indicating by example the way in which he thinks they should conduct their business.

It is believed the Act is so constructed that the Chief Justice need not be overburdened with judicial work. If the judicial business for the court of last resort of the state is small, the Chief Justice, as a member of that court, will have time for his judicial business and administrative as well. If the judicial business of the court of last resort is already heavy, there is ample provision made for the creation of additional divisions of the Court of Appeal to take care of all appellate business without calling upon the Chief Justice, and for the reduction of the causes heard by the Supreme Court Division of the Court of Appeal to those only in which a