Johnson, Stanley H.

English

University of Denver

Denver Law Review Volume 24 Issue 6 Article 5 June 2021 Comments of the Bench, Bar, and Public Officers Upon Some Phases of the Colorado Judiciary System: Report of the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado Bar Association Stanley H. Johnson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Stanley H. Johnson, Comments of the Bench, Bar, and Public Officers Upon Some Phases of the Colorado Judiciary System: Report of the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado Bar Association, 24 Dicta 123 (1947). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. DICTAthe Senate committee, and it is urged that others do likewise. An earlyhearing will be held before the sub-committee.If sufficient interest is shown by the members of the bar, the com-mittee feels that the bill has a good chance to pass. Under the existinglaw there is no way for the lawyer veteran to be eligible for "on-the-jobtraining," but if the amendment is passed relief will be available. Therewill be opposition; hence, the committee urges immediate action."The attention of all Colorado lawyers is particularly invited to the lasttwo paragraphs of the above report: Prompt action is necessary if we are tohelp our young lawyer veterans obtain the benefits to which we think theyare entitled. The committee has done its work in getting the matter beforethe Congress and hopes that the profession will support its endeavors.Accordingly, the members of the Colorado bar are urged to make theirviews on this matter known at once to Senator Wayne L. Morse, Chairmanof the Sub-committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.,the sponsor of Senate Bill 986, or the members of the congressional delegationfrom Colorado.Comments of the Bench, Bar, and Public OfficersUpon Some Phases of the ColoradoJudiciary SystemReport of the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado Bar AssociationBy STANLEY H. JOHNSON, Executive SecretaryIn the course of its work in analyzing the judiciary system of Colorado,and of submitting possible changes for the improvement of that system, theJudiciary Committee has sent out extensive questionnaires. Answers from asufficient number had been received in May to warrant calling together thecommittee's district chairmen. Accordingly, a meeting was held on Saturday,May 24th, at the committee's office in Denver, presided over by Philip S. VanCise, chairman of the committee, at which every judicial district, with the ex-ception of the Sixth in southwestern Colorado, was represented.At this meeting digests were submitted to each district chairman of thecomments received concerning the courts in every county of his district. Thechairmen, or their representatives, were then asked to comment freely upontheir ideas of the needs of each county in their respective districts. The pur-pose of the meeting, primarily, was to .give the committee members firsthand opinion and information, not only of what might be desirable in im-proving the judicial system, but also what might be practical, considering theopinions of the bar and public in each community.This information is most important at this time, because it is the. intentionof the committee, by the end of June, to present to the bar and 'public gener-ally, for discussion and criticism, only such possible or proposed changes as124 DICTAappear to be acceptable in practice, as well as desirable in theory. The sug-gestions of the district chairmen were of great value toward this end.In addition to the members of the Denver Coordinating Committee,which included Worth Allen, vice-chairman, the chairmen of the Denvercommittees discussed the problems under consideration by their committeeswith the district chairmen at a luncheon meeting at the Shirley Savoy Hotel.Winston S. Howard spoke for the Non-partisan Committee, having underconsideration non-partisan election of judges, salary, retirement-, tenure ofoffice, the desirability of a judicial council and a chief justice with supervisoryexecutive powers over the entire court system.He discussed with the various chairmen whether a non-partisan selectionof judges would tend to improve justice in the state, and if so, whether itshould be applied to the selection of supreme court justices alone, or by localoption to district and county courts, as well; whether, if it were adopted forany courts, appointment should be made by the governor, chief justice, judicialcouncil, or some other individual or body; whether appointment should beupon nominations by a commission, or other method, and the number,personnel, and manner of selection of such a commission; whether after ap-pointment the incumbent should be elected by the people upon the solequestion whether he should be retained in office, without an opposing candi-date, as in Missouri and California, or by non-partisan ballot in a generalelection, or special election, as is now provided in many western states.The following Denver chairmen spoke briefly of the matters under con-sideration of their committees: Fred Neef, Supreme Court Committee; PeterH. Holme, Jr., County Court Committee; Elmer L. Brock, Jr., Juvenile CourtCommittee; and Albert E. Sherlock, Justice Court Committee. Joseph G.Hodges, Denver Chairman of the District Court Committee then presentedfor consideration some problems of his committee, including the following:whether any counties should be transferred to a different district, or any twodistricts consolidated; whether there is an excess or insufficient number ofdistrict judges in any district; whether all or any part of the jurisdiction ofthe county courts should be transferred to the district courts, and if so, inwhat counties; whether the clerks of the district courts should be given au-thority to issue summary orders in the absence of the judge.Four hours of the day were given over to the consideration of problemsraised by the answers to the various questionnaires. The following districtchairmen or alternates were present: District 1-Carl Cline, Golden, chair-man; 3-Frank Hall, Trinidad, chairman; 4-Frederick T. Henry, ColoradoSprings, chairman; 5-A. J. Laing, Leadville, chairman; 7-Norman Hotchkissrepresenting John P. Helman, Grand Junction, chairman; 8-Hatfield Chil-son, Loveland, chairman; 9-Judge William A. Mason, Glenwood Springs,chairman; 10-John Faricy, -Pueblo, representing Harry S. Petersen, Pueblo,chairman; 11-James Harrison Hawthorne, Canon City, representing JohnDICTAM. Boyle, Salida, chairman; 12-Raphael J.. Moses, Alamosa, chairman; 13--George Epperson, Fort Morgan, representing Judge Raymond L. Sauter,Sterling, chairman; 14-Farrington Carpenter, Hayden, representing JamesMosley, Craig, chairman; 15--Gordon Allott, Lamar, chairman.Answers and comments to questionnaires had been received from sixsources: the district judges, county judges, county chairmen of the judiciarycommittee, district attorneys, sheriffs, and county clerks. In addition mapsof each county were sent out to the county chairmen upon which the justiceprecincts were to be indicated.Replies to some or all of the questionnaires had been received by May24th from the following 39 counties: District 1-Adams, Arapahoe, Jeffer-son; 4-El Paso, Teller; 5-Eagle, Lake, Summit; 6-Archuleta, Dolores, La-Plata, Montezuma, San Juan; 7-Delta, Gunnison, Mesa, Montrose; 8-Boulder, Jackson, Larimer, Weld; 10-Crowley, Otero, Pueblo; 11-Chaffee,Custer, Fremont; 12-Costilla, Rio Grande; 13-Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick,Yuma; 14-Grand, Moffat; 15-Bent. It is essential that all returns fromall counties be made by the first of June, so that the Denver committees mayproceed with their work of digesting the statistics and comments.Some idea of the sentiment from various parts of the state upon thepossible changes suggested by the Judiciary Committee may be obtained froma tabulation of the replies. The questions and replies are for that purpose setforth. It is the hope of the committee that every attorney reviewing thisarticle, who has comments or suggestions concerning any of these questionswill mail them to the committee office at 727 Ernest and Cranmer Building,Denver. The committee needs and wants all the opinions it can get, proor con.Answers were received from the county chairmen, 36 counties reporting,to the following questions:1. How much time of the judge of the district court is taken up withthe business of the court in your county? Answers vary from 2 days a monthin the smaller counties, to ten per cent of the time to full time in the largercounties.2. Does the clerk of the district court also act as clerk of the countycourt? No-34, yes-2.3. Can all the work of justice, county, and district courts be handled byone judge in your county? Yes-21, no-15.4. Is the judge of your county court a lawyer? No-19, yes-15, noanswer-2. If not, what was the last date a lawyer held office? Answersvary from "never" to "1943."5. Can all the work of the justice courts of your county by handled bythe county court at the county seat? Yes-26, no-lO.6. If so, can these courts be combined to the advantage of the public?Yes-23, no-6, no answer-7.DICTA7. Is there any real need for justice courts in your county? If so, atwhat places? Yes (no number specified)-4, yes (county seat)-2, yes (oneplace)-3, yes (2 places)-5, yes (3 places)-3, yes (4 places)-3, yes (5places)-1, no--15.8. If the county judge also had all the functions of the justices of thepeace, should he have the right to hold court in different sections of thecounty? If so, where, and how often? Yes (no place specified)-6, yes (oneplace)-2, yes (two places)-5, yes (three places)-2, -yes (four places)-i,yes (anywhere)-2 no-15. Answers vary--any time, once monthly, twicemonthly, 1 day, 4 days.9. Would the public interest be served by combining police or municipalcourts with justice courts, if the latter are retained? Yes-25 (many are al-ready), no--9, none of either in the county-I, no answer-i.Replies from county chairmen to the following questions upon the dis-trict court, 15 counties reporting were:1. Does the court have an adequate staff? Yes-13, no-2, (probationofficer-i, typist and recorder-1).2. Are there sufficient or too many judges in your district? Sufficient-11, sufficient most of the year-1, sufficient except for distances-i, in-adequate-2.3. Should the court's jurisdiction be changed in any manner? Forexample, should it be given exclusive original jurisdiction of contested mat-ters in estates? No change--8, district court should absorb county court-2,all probate matters in district court-i, trial in either court, but appeal onlyto supreme court-l, all contested matters to district court, where countyjudge is a lay judge-1.Replies of county chairmen or district judges to questions concerningthe district court, 16 counties reporting were:1, Is there enough work for a full time judge in your district? Yes--11, no-4, no answer--i.2. Is an additional judge necessary? No-15, yes-l.3. Should the county courts be consolidated with the district court?No-8, yes-5, no objection if extra judges-2, no answer-1.4. Should the justice courts be consolidated with the county courts?No-9, yes-6, no answer-1.5. Should contested cases involving estate matters be tried originally inthe district court? Yes-9, no-7.6. Should there be a central administrative office in the supreme courtto supervise assignment of judges? No--10, yes-6. To supervise clericalstaffs? No-13, yes-3. To supervise purchase of supplies? No-12, yes-4.7. Do you approve of an integrated court system in which all courtsare divisions of one court with the chief justice of the Supreme Court thepresiding officer? No-8, yes-5, no opinion-3.DICTA8. Do you favor annual compulsory meeting of all judges of courts ofrecord, expenses to be paid by the state? Yes-13, yes (under integratedcourt)-I, yes (if not compulsory)-l, no-i.9. Do you believe the present method of selecting judges in Colorado isthe best method? No-12, yes--2, doubtful-i, no opinion-1. If not,what method do you favor? Appointment by governor upon recommendationfrom local bar-2, non-partisan-2, California or Missouri plan--5, no sys-tem mentioned-3.Replies of county chairmen to questions on county court, 22 countiesreporting were:1. Does the court have an adequate staff? Yes-14, no-4, no answer-4. If not, what help is needed and what will it cost? Probation officer-2,court reporter-2. $1500 to $2400.2. Should the court's jurisdiction be changed in any of the followingways:A. A separate estate court created? No-22.B. Should the county court continue to handle all estate business?Yes--17, yes (if judge a lawyer)-1; no (removed to district court)-i,no-3.C. Where the county judge is a layman, should all contested matters betransferred to the district court on motion of any party? Yes--18, no-3,judge is a lawyer-1.D. Or should only such contested matters as require a jury be thustransferred? All matters-17, none-4, no answer-1.E. Should the county court take over the justice court business? No--13,yes-6, only if another judge provided-2, doubtful-1.F. Should it take over all contested cases? Yes-9, possibly-1, no-8,no, if county judge a layman-2.G. Would it improve justice to have masters or referees acting asneeded under supervision of the county judge in place of justices of thepeace? No--14, yes-4, only if procedure changed-3, don't know-1.H. Does the county court perform an essential service in your county?Yes-16, only in estates-i, no-4.I. Or should it be consolidated with the district court? No-13, yes, ifadditional help-7.J. If the county court took over all justice court business, would anadditional district judge and additional employees be required? Yes-17,no-3.3. What is the opinion of the court (not the judge) by the citizens inyour community? Good-12, respected-i, fair-1, poor-2, don't know-1.4. Would a lawyer as judge (if the judge is a layman) be preferableto one who is not a lawyer? Yes-18, no-i, question of ability-1.DICTAReplies of district attorneys to questions on justice courts, 28 countiesreporting were:1. Is it difficult to obtain competent and reliable men to serve as jus-tices of the peace in this county? Yes-15, yes (outside county seat)-1,no-I 2.2. Is there sufficient justice court criminal work in your county to jus,tify one or more full time, salaried judges? If so, how many? No-19, yes(one justice)-5, yes (two justices)-4.3. If the work justified a full time, salaried, justice, do you believe afull time salaried justice would improve the administration of criminal casessufficiently to justify the expense? Yes-8, no-6, no answer-14.4. Could justice court cases be filed with the justice at the county seatwithout serious inconvenience? Yes-19, no-6, no answer-3. Ap-proximately how many were or could have been? None in one county, all casesin two counties, from 5 to 2598 in the remainder.5. Is the present system adequate and satisfactory? No-14, no (exceptat county seat)-i, fair-3, satisfactory- 10.6. As to the following my answer is:A. One justice at county seat to handle all justice court criminal cases?No-9, yes-7, no answer-12.B. One justice with power to hear qriminal cases elsewhere than atcounty seat? No--13, yes-3, no answer-12.C. Eliminate all criminal cases from justice courts and place in countycourt? No-I 6, yes-3, no answer-9.D. Eliminate, as above, except for traffic cases? No-16, yes-1, noanswer-i I.E. Abolish justice court jurisdiction in criminal cases and place underjurisdiction of a deputy judge or judges, to travel throughout the county asneeded? No-16, yes-2, no answer- 10.Replies from sheriffs to questions on justice court constables, 39 countiesreporting, were:1. Can the sheriff's office discharge all the duties of the constables ofthe justice court? Yes-30, no---4, no answer-5.2. How many deputy sheriffs have you in your county? One deputy ineight counties, 2 in 6, 3 in 1, 4 in 3, 5 in 3, 6 in 2, 7 in 1, 9 in 2, 12 in 1,none in 12.3. Do you need any other deputies to handle the constable's work? Ifso, how many? Yes-10, no-21, no answer 18. Where the number of addi-tional deputies was specified, never over one.A great deal of valuable discussion upon these questions resulted fromthe meeting of May 24th with the district chairmen. Much more will resultif all members of the bar will give the Committee the benefit of their opin-ions. This can easily be done with no more labor than you spend upon a crossDICTAword puzzle, if you will tear out this article, write your ballot, or opinion onthe margin opposite the question, and mail it in to the Judiciary Committee,727 Ernest and Cranmer Building, Denver. You need not sign your name,but be sure to indicate the county in which you practice at the top of thearticle.Denver Bar Association Honors Those in PracticeFifty Years or MoreOn April 9, 1947, at a special evening dinner meeting, the Denver BarAssociation honored thirty-six members who have been engaged in the prac-tice of law for fifty years or more, and awarded them with life membershipsin the association. Those so honored and the respective dates of their admis-sion to practice are:Name AdmittedJohn F. Tourtellotte-.................................. September 14, 1883Frank T. Johnson .................................................. July 29, 1885Grant L. Hudson .................................................... June 3, 1886R obert C ollier .......................................................... June 21, 1886Albert Sheridan Frost .................................... January 27, 1887Robert J. Pitkin -----------_ .......... .. .... . .. February 8, 1887George F. Dunklee ............................................ March 12, 1887Frank N . Bancroft ----------_--------.................... September 14, 1887J. E. Robinson ...................................................... January 11, 1889Samuel E. M arshall ................................................ A pril 19, 1889John Huston Gabriel ................................. April 10, 1890Harry C. Davis .......................................... September 17, 1890Albert Augustus Reed ............................................ July 2, 1891James Hammond Pershing ............................. December 19, 1891Warren A. Haggott ............................................ June 15, 1892Clayton C. Dorsey .......................................... February 2, 1893Horace Phelps ...................................................... July 17, 1893Benjamin Clark Hilliard ......................... October 25, 1893Henry H . Clark ................................................ December 30, 1893Newton C. Garbutt ........................................ February 1, 1894M ilton E. Blake .................................................... July 12, 1894Henry McAllister ................................................ July 24, 1894Horace N. Hawkins .......................................... August 15, 1894Henry A. Hicks ................................................ August 15, 1894Samuel W. Johnson .................................... November 10, 1894Henry C. Vidal ............................................ December 17, 1894Erwin L. Regennitter ................... March 13, 1895

Comments of the Bench, Bar, and Public Officers Upon Some Phases of the Colorado Judiciary System: Report of the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado Bar Association

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5292&context=dlr

Comments of the Bench, Bar, and Public Officers Upon Some Phases of the Colorado Judiciary System: Report of the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado Bar Association

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver