USA > New York > Bronx County > The Bronx and its people; a history, 1609-1927, Volume II > Part 8
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45
Bronx-32
498
THE BRONX AND ITS PEOPLE
not resulted in the selection of scholarly, competent, industrious, im- partial and incorruptible judges."
The convention gave eight months of study to the subject and re- ported their findings in due course to the Legislature. Some of the amendments recommended were not strictly constitutional provisions at all, but rather such as are strictly within the domain of legislative power and discretion, and consequently should be dealt with in and by statutes, thus becoming subject to ready amendment or repeal. Never- theless, being matters of vital importance to the State and such as demanded careful consideration, and more permanence than statutory law could give, it was deemed more prudent to incorporate these changes in the organic law, for although cases can be cited of injustice and hardship wrought because of remedial measures urgently needed were impossible by the slow process of constitutional amendment, yet, on the whole, vital governmental principles should be protected against alteration save by a course that affords more time for con- sideration of the subject than has been possible during recent years by the statutory method.
The proposed new Article VI, as recommended by the Constitutional Convention of 1921, opened with an entirely new section, which sought to vest the judicial power in the courts, just as the legislative power is vested in the Legislature and the executive power in the Governor. Their reason in wishing to make the judicial department of government as distinct and separate as the legislative and executive was based on good ground. "The due protection of personal and property rights demands such a provision," states the report, "and certainly the spirit of Magna Charta and due process of law so requires." For centuries before the American Revolution it had been regarded in England to be a sound constitutional principle, as phrased in Magna Charta itself, that all should be entitled to trial in courts of justice held or presided over by judges who "know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well." Undoubtedly bureaucracy has during recent decades been encroaching more and more upon what should be the exclusive jurisdic- tion of the courts of justice. "Extensive legislative, executive and judi- cial powers are being vested and combined in distinct and reckless dis- regard of the sound principle of the separation of governmental powers." Even "controverted questions of law and fact, heretofore regarded as fundamental and exclusively for judicial determination, are being en- trusted to bureaucratic discretion." There has been such an alarming increase in public functionaries and public expenditures in New York State during the last twenty years that competent observers view the tendency "as imperilling not only our liberties but the very solvency of the State and its municipalities." Chief Justice Cullen said in one of his constructive opinions :
499
COURTS AND LAWYERS
The great misfortune of the day is the mania for regulating all human conduct by statute, from responsibility for which few are exempt, since many of our most intelligent and highly educated citizens, who resent as paternalism and socialism legislative interference with affairs in which they are interested, are most persistent in the attempt to regulate by law the conduct of others.
This appears to be an important section of the proposed judiciary article, yet it is not be found in either the Schackno or Cole bills. But the last section of the Cole bill is interesting. It refers particularly to the Court of Claims. The convention in its report and proposed new article deals first with Supreme Court matters, considering sections 2, 3, 4, and 5, of the Constitution of 1894. While the members recognized the Supreme Court as vested with general original jurisdiction in law and equity, and were mindful that there had been of late a strong tendency to impinge upon and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, they did not deem it advisable to attempt to define the scope of the constitutional term "general jurisdiction." It was pointed out that the rule was well settled that the present language deprived the Legislature of all power to take from the Supreme Court any of its existing jurisdiction or to limit its general jurisdiction, although it left the Legislature free to give general jurisdiction likewise to other judicial tribunals. Nevertheless, the general jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court by the State Constitution did not operate to pre- vent the Legislature from changing the common or statutory law, or from regulating and altering the jurisdiction and proceedings in law and equity. This was expressly provided in 1869 and was incorporated in Section 20 of the Cole Judiciary Bill of 1925, viz .: "The Legislature shall have the same power to alter and regulate the jurisdiction and proceedings in law and in equity that it has heretofore exercised."
The convention recommended that the ratio of justices of the Supreme Court to population be increased from eighty to one hundred thousand in the First and Second Judicial Districts, and from sixty to seventy- five thousand in the remaining seven districts; but the bill as passed maintained the old ratio. Recognizing that the reform adopted in 1894, in creating the Appellate Divisions, had been generally successful and satisfactory, the convention continued the Appellate Divisions and existing judicial districts. It was proposed that the Governor be given power, when necessary, for the speedy disposition of cases pending before the Appellate Divisions, to designate additional justices tem- porarily, and that such justice need not be resident within the division, to which he was assigned, though "a majority of the justices designated to sit in any Appellate Division shall at all times be residents of the department." The experience of the First and Second Districts during recent years was recognized as demonstrating that "a very desirable element of impartiality and confidence" was supplied when
500
THE BRONX AND ITS PEOPLE
the experience of justices trained in other parts of the State was thus borrowed in cases "which might be thought to involve local predilec- tions or prejudices." The authority of the Governor to fix the time and place of extraordinary terms of the Supreme Court, without first consulting the Appellate Division was not considered "conducive to the best interests" of the State. The Constitution of 1894 expressly pro- vided that the justices of the Appellate Division in each judicial de- partment should have the power to fix the times and places for holding special and trial terms therein, and to assign justices in the departments to hold such terms. But by amendment passed in 1905 the power of the justices was restricted to special terms. The Legislature, however, deemed it necessary to amend the judiciary law, Section 84, so as to provide that all trial terms, as well as all special terms, should be fixed by the Appellate Divisions. The constitutionality of the statutory provision was, however, challenged. Both the conventions of 1915 and 1921 thought it was necessary, in order to secure due administration and distribution of the judicial business of the departments, that the Appellate Divisions should have the power to fix the times and places for holding not merely the special terms, at which equity cases are triable, but also all the other terms of the Supreme Court in each depart- ment, and to assign the justices in the departments to hold such terms. They felt that there would have to be some centralized administrative control, and looked upon the Appellate Division as the most appropriate body for such responsibility. The convention introduced a new provi- sion in regard to the extraordinary terms appointed by the Governor. While the exercise of such power by him had been sustained in the courts and the calling of an extraordinary term was under the pre- vailing law beyond the control of the Appellate Division, the convention felt that an amendment which would prevent the appointment by the Governor of a justice to hold an extraordinary term without even consulting the justices of the Appellate Division of the department would prove advantageous. The Cole Judiciary Bill omitted this provision, but gave the Appellate Divisions the "power to fix the times and places for holding special and trial terms of the Supreme Court held therein, and to assign the justices in the departments to hold such terms."
The Constitution of 1894 made no provision for any appellate tri- bunals to hear appeals to the Supreme Court from inferior and local courts, which were then being heard in the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York and the Superior Court of Buffalo. The only provision made was that such appeals should "be heard in the Supreme Court in such manner and by such justice or justices as the Appellate Divisions in the respective departmets which include
501
COURTS AND LAWYERS
New York and Buffalo shall direct, unless otherwise provided by the Legislature." Appellate Terms were promptly created by the First and Second Departments, and they have functioned satisfactorily ; in- deed these tribunals "are in largest measure the only appellate tribunal known to the majority of the residents of the Greater City of New York." To remove all possible constitutional doubt as to the authority to constitute Appellate Terms, and to make these terms permanent constitutional courts, in all departments, and to leave no discretion in the several Appellate Divisions as to their continuance or discontinu- ance, was the purpose of Section 3 of the Cole Bill. The Sections (6, 7, and 8) of the Constitution of 1894 that provide particularly for the Court of Appeals had only once been amended, and there had been no constitutional change following 1899. The Convention of 1921 re- commended that the Court of Appeals be continued as then constituted, to consist of a chief judge and six elected associate judges. They also were of the opinion that the prevailing system of designating Supreme Court justices as associate judges during the extreme stress of work was entirely satisfactory. During the first twenty years of this century eleven justices of the Supreme Court were designated for service in the Court of Appeals, and nine of these eventually became permanent judges of the court. In fact it has come to be regarded generally that a temporary judgeship is the safest way of proving the merits of the jurist; and when he has been found to be competent and satisfactory, the electorate has invariably shown a desire to promote him to a permanent judgeship in the Court of Appeals.
The Convention of 1921 recommended the insertion of a new provision in Section 6, authorizing the Court of Appeals, in case of a temporary absence or inability to act of a judge, to designate a justice of the Supreme Court to serve during such absence or inability to act. They also wished to leave to the court the question of when the temporary additional judges should be released, instead of making their return to the Supreme Court compulsory when the calendar of the Court of Appeals should have been reduced to two hundred causes. As to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, the convention agreed that it should continue to be essentially and always a court of law. Two exceptions were provided: One is whenever the judgment is of death, which exception has long existed ; the other is based on the principle of allow- ing the litigant at least one appeal on the facts. It is argued that if the Appellate Division actually makes new findings of fact, and there- upon renders final judgment, the litigant decided against ought to have a review of those findings in some appellate tribunal. This plea is not new; indeed, it was recommended by the Convention of 1915, after full discussion. The Cole Bill adds that "the right to appeal shall not
502
THE BRONX AND ITS PEOPLE
depend upon the amount involved." In the proposed new article, the second sentence was struck out of Section 9, which provided that no unanimous decision of Appellate Division that there was evidence supporting or tending to sustain a finding of a fact or a verdict directed by the court should be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. This provision had frequently precluded the review of what was always and essentially a question of law, a possibility not contemplated by the framers of the constitution.
The convention further wished to provide that all litigants should be secure as a matter of right in the privilege of appealing to the highest judicial tribunal of the State, and not be dependent on leave to do so. It was therefore recommended that the existing provisions of Sections 588 and 589 of the Civil Practice Act be embodied in the Constitution, so that they should no longer be subject to constant change by the Legislature. The power of removal of judges and impeachment was continued as provided by Sections 9 and 10.
The County Courts were to come in for radical alteration in the coun- ties of Greater New York under the original amendments of the con- vention. The new bill was intended to give the Legislature authority to provide for the election of a surrogate in any county, regardless of its population. And the Cole Bill had a clause regarding Children's Courts which was identical with the amendment ratified by the people on November 8, 1921. An important new section began thus:
All judges, justices, and surrogates shall receive for their services such com- pensation as is now or may hereafter be established by law, provided only that such compensation shall not be diminished during their respective terms of office.
The convention was of the opinion that the compensation of judges should be left entirely to the Legislature, and should not be dealt with in a constitution. It was generally agreed that the prevailing com- pensation of the judges of the Court of Appeals and of the justices of the Supreme Court, as found by the Constitution, was inadequate. With mounting cost of living, the cost of rendering service rises; there- fore the compensation for service should rise, and, to be fair, should rise proportionately. Ditch diggers were working for a dollar a day on the Erie Canal contracts in 1896 and 1897 ; they could command many times that wage today. On the other hand the stipend of the judges of the Court of Appeals had remained unchanged since 1887. Efforts to remedy this injustice by the only means possible, viz., by constitu- tional amendment, had failed, an indifferent electorate not giving the amendment the consideration it merited. But if the question of judicial salaries were altogether taken out of the Constitution it would be easier promptly to make compensation for service meet the cost of service.
503
COURTS AND LAWYERS
There were some other important amendments incorporated in the proposed new judiciary article, but the foregoing were the most vital. The report of the Judicial Constitutional Convention of 1921, which is Legislative Document (1922), No. 37, was signed by William D. Guthrie, chairman, and by other members of the executive committee, the report being prepared by order of the convention. It was counter- signed by Cuthbert W. Pound, permanent chairman of the convention, who, however, set above his signature the following words: "Whilst I concur in the recommendations of the convention, I do not concur in all of the above discussions." There were many lawyers who did not concur in the whole of the report prepared by the executive com- mittee, or in the whole of the recommendations of the convention. In the year that followed many associations met with the executive committee, and amendments to the convention's recommendations were agreed upon, and incorporated in the Senate bills. The Coles Bill was introduced in the Senate on March 9th, and passed; it was amended by the Assembly on March 17, 1925, and on the same day the amendments were accepted by the Senate. The proposed new judiciary article of the Constitution was therefore submitted to the people at the general elec- tion of 1925 and passed.
Civil and Police Courts-The following are the civil and police courts The Bronx :
Supreme Court-Bronx Court House, 161st Street and Third Avenue. County Court-Bergen Building, Tremont and Arthur avenues.
Court of Special Sessions-Bergen Building, Tremont and Arthur avenues.
Children's Court-355 East 137th Street.
Domestic Relations Court-1014 East 181st Street.
Surrogate's Court-Bergen Building, Tremont and Arthur avenues. Traffic Court-161st Street and Washington Avenue.
First District Municipal Court (Civil)-1400 Williamsbridge Road. Second District Municipal Court (Civil)-Washington Avenue and 162nd Street.
Sixth District Magistrate's Court (Police)-Brook Avenue and 161st Street (18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st Police Precincts).
Eighth District Magistrate's Court (Police)-181st Street and Boston Road (22nd, 23rd, 24th, 26th, and 27th Police Precincts).
Magistrate's Courts' District Boundaries-The Magistrate's Courts' district boundaries are as follows :
Sixth District-Bronx Kills, Harlem River, Hudson River, Van Cort- landt Park East, East 233rd Street, Jerome Avenue, Fordham Road, Grand Boulevard, and Concourse, 169th Street, Boston Road, East Tremont Avenue, Bronx River, 174th Street, Morrison Avenue, Sound
504
THE BRONX AND ITS PEOPLE
View Avenue, Patterson Avenue, Pugsby's Creek, East River (includ- ing North Brother, South Brother, and Riker's islands). Police Pre- cincts : 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st. Courtroom-Brook Avenue and 161st Street.
Eighth District-East River, Pugsby's Creek, Patterson Avenue, Sound View Avenue, Morrison Avenue, 174th Street, Bronx River, East Tremont Avenue, Boston Road, 169th Street, Grand Boulevard and Concourse, Fordham Road, Jerome Avenue, East 233rd Street, Van Cortlandt Park East, City Line, Pelham Bay, Eastchester Bay, Long Island Sound (including City, Hart's, Hunter's, and Twin islands), East River, Police Precincts ; 22nd, 23rd, 26th and 27th. Courtroom- 181st Street and Boston Road.
Thirteenth District (Domestic Relations Court)-Entire Borough of The Bronx. Courtroom-1014 East 181st Street.
Traffic Court-Entire Borough of The Bronx. Courtroom-161st Street and Washington Avenue.
Municipal Courts' District Boundaries-First-Beginning at the centre line of Mt. Vernon Avenue, and its junction with the northern boundary line of the city of New York, south to East 233rd Street, easterly to the Bronx River, thence along the Bronx River to Fordham Road, thence along the Fordham Road to Southern Boulevard, thence along the Southern Boulevard to Marmion Avenue, thence along Marmion Avenue to East 175th Street, thence along 175th Street to Southern Boulevard, thence along Southern Boulevard to Crotona Park East, thence along Crotona Park East to Clinton Avenue, thence along Clinton Avenue to East 169th Street, thence along East 169th Street to Union Avenue,
thence along Union Avenue to East 149th Street, thence along 149th Street to the waters of the East River, thence to the northern boundary line of the city of New York, thence along the northern boundary line of the city of New York to the point or place of beginning. Courtroom- 1400 Williamsbridge Hotel. Parts I and II. Peter A Sheil, Justice ; Ely Neumann, Justice.
Second-Embracing the remainder of the Borough of The Bronx. Courtroom-Southeast corner of Washington Avenue and 162nd Street. Parts I, II, III. (Part III located in the Bergen Building, 1918 Arthur Avenue.) William E. Morris, Justice; James J. Fitzgerald, Justice.
The Bronx County Administration-The following are the justices and other officers of The Bronx County Administration together with their place of office :
Hon. Richard H. Mitchell, Supreme Court Justice, 161st Street and Third Avenue; Hon. George V. Mullan, Supreme Court Justice, 161st Street and Third Avenue; Hon. John M. Tierney, Supreme Court Jus- tice, 161st Street and Third Avenue; Hon. Leonard A. Giegerich,
505
COURTS AND LAWYERS
Supreme Court Justice, 161st Street and Third Avenue; Hon. Peter A. Hatting, Supreme Court Justice, 161st Street and Third Avenue ; Hon. Louis D. Gibbs, Supreme Court Justice, 161st Street and Third Avenue; Hon. Edward J. Glennon, Supreme Court Justice, 161st Street and Third Avenue ; Hon. Ernest E. L. Hammer, Supreme Court Justice, 161st Street and Third Avenue; Hon. Thomas E. McGeehan, District Attorney, Tremont and Arthur avenues; Hon. Albert Cohn, County Judge, Tremont and Arthur avenues; Hon. George M. S. Schulz, Sur- rogate, Tremont and Arthur avenues, Public Administrator, 2808 Third Avenue; Hon. Lester W. Patterson, Sheriff, Tremont and Arthur ave- nues; Hon. Louis A. Schoffel, Register, Tremont and Arthur avenues ; Hon. Robert L. Moran, County Clerk, 161st Street and Third Avenue ; Hon. John A. Mason, Commissioner of Jurors, Tremont and Arthur avenues; Hon. John J. Knewitz, Commissioner of Records, 161 Street and Third Avenue.
Judges of the Municipal Courts-The judges of the Municipal Courts in The Bronx are as follows: Hon. Peter A. Shiel, Hon. William E. Morris, Hon. James J. Fitzgerald, Hon. Ely Neumann.
Bronx County Bar Association-This association of lawyers was incorporated in 1902 as the Association of the Bar of the Borough of The Bronx in the City of New York. The name was changed in 1913 to the Association of the Bar of the County of The Bronx; and the name was again changed in 1924 to The Bronx County Bar Association. Any member of the Bar of the State of New York can become a member of the Association on recommendation of the Committee of Membership of the Association. Judges of courts of record or members of the legal profession may become honorary members of the Association on recom- mendation of the Committee on Membership, and by vote of the mem- bership of the Association.
The Board of Directors of the Association meet once each month, sometimes oftener, except during the months of July and August. The attendance of five members at any meeting of the Board constitutes a quorum. The Board manages the business affairs of the Association and authorizes contracts to be made by officers of the Association or by any of the committees. The officers of the Association are a presi- dent, a first vice-president, a second vice-president, a secretary, a treasur- er, and a board of nine directors, of which the president and first vice- president are two of the members. The officers are elected at the annual meeting held on the second Friday of January and they hold their offices for one year or until their successors are elected or appointed.
The president presides and is an ex-officio member of all standing committees. He appoints all special committees of the Association
506
THE BRONX AND ITS PEOPLE
and has power to fill vacancies on all committees. The secretary keeps the records of the meetings of the association and all other matters ordered to be recorded. He issues notices of meetings, files with the treasurer a statement containing the name, address, date of admission to the bar, and date of election of each new member within seven days after the election of such member, and notifies new members in writing of their election.
Annual meetings are held on the second Friday of January of each year, and the regular meetings on the second Friday of each month ex- cept during July and August. The Board of Directors, because of the unprofessional conduct or other conduct detrimental to the interests of the Association, may recommend to the Association the suspension or expulsion of any such member after giving him a reasonable opportunity to answer such charges, and such member may thereupon be suspended or expelled by the Association by a two-thirds vote of those present at any meeting.
There is a Committee on Practice and Procedure which obtains information about the procedure and business of the courts and the manner in which they are conducted, and the duties performed by the judges, clerks and other officers connected with the courts, and to consider and pass upon all such matters relating to the foregoing as shall be referred to it by the Association. It reports to the Association such matters as may be of service in the administration of justice.
There is also a Committee on Judiciary, which observes the practical operation of the courts of Justice, civil and criminal, and makes recom- mendation to the Association. It investigates any complaints which may be made as to the conduct of any judicial officer and reports on it with any recommendations it may think fit to the Association.
It considers the fitness of candidates nominated or proposed for election or appointment for judicial office or quasi judicial office. It may confer on that subject with other organizations and with nomina- ting conventions or committees or with any public officer in whom is vested the power of appointment, and recommend to the Association at any meeting, special or general, such action in respect of candidates as it may deem advisable. Its recommendations or report, however, as to the fitness of candidates who may be or are about to be nominated, designated or appointed to a judicial office, is required to be in writing and to be made and submitted separately as to each candidate together with its reasons and grounds. Action upon any such recommendation is taken by the Association by secret ballot on each candidate separately. But no unanimous report or recommendation of such committee can be rejected except by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.