THE APPLICABILITY OF ENGLISH METHODS body of constitutional law as applied to public and private controversies, which oc cupies so much space in our text books and reports, is practically unknown in English jurisprudence. And herein is the marked distinction in the exercise of the judicial function by the courts of England and the courts of this country. The nature of the federal government and the government of the several states is such, that the courts, both federal and state, have performed an •enormous work in ascertaining and estab lishing the objects and limitations of the federal system and of its component statesThe long and laborious councils of the United States Supreme Court, in the earlydays of the Republic, are as much respon sible for the perpetuated and strengthened Union as the force of arms which made the opinions of that court the verities of the federal system. The state courts in turn, and following the analogy of the United States Supreme Court, have been called upon from time to time to expound the constitutions of the several states and to give to the government of the state a reality which
289
insures it against internal weakness or destruction. Every fresh manifestation of the obvious and natural essentials of government is for a time at least decried as an act in viola tion of the Constitution. It sometimes seems as though the growth of the nation, or of a state, had no purpose but to frac ture the Constitution. At least we are always hearing from those who are chron ically against doing things, .that the Con stitution is in danger. To settle the con troversies incident to every stretch which the country takes in growing, the courts are compelled to deny to private litigants the time required for a speedy determination of their cases. In addition to this the courts are called upon each year for a larger and fuller expression of their judicial functions, particularly in connection with public af fairs. That they have power to prevent the violation of the law, as well as to punish its infraction, is gradually being accepted as a necessary part of their functions. PLATT ROGERS. DENVER, COLORADO, April, 1905.
NEW YORK I have read with interest Mr. Crane's article on "Speedy Trials in England." An unusually wide experience in connec tion with the system of procedure prevailing in the Federal Courts and in a number of states of the Union has produced certain impressions upon my mind regarding the law's delays and the possible remedies therefor which, perhaps, are not quite in accord with those often expressed by the makers of codes, who regard them as curealls for the delays in legal procedure. I am familiar with the procedure in the Federal Courts in nearly all branches, and particularly with the system of equity prac tice established by the equity rules pro mulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States for the guidance of the Circuit
Courts in cases of equity jurisdiction. I am also familiar with such modified systems of common law and equity procedure as pre vail in Tennessee, Virginia, Illinois, and Massachusetts. I was initiated in the prac tice under the Practice Act of Missouri which, as it then stood, was substantially the old Field Code of New York. Later I became well acquainted with the code of Indiana, and somewhat familiar with the socalled complete codification both of sub stantive law and procedure in the state of Georgia. As the result of my experience, I think that the best systems of procedure in this country to-day are those prevailing in the Federal Courts upon the equity side and in the courts of Massachusetts. The very
