CHIEF JUSTICE. In the various States of the United States there is uniformly some constitutional provision for a court of last resort, but the organization of that court varies materially. In the older States, notably those in existence at the time of the adoption of the Federal constitution, the provisions of the Consti tution are very sparse in detail, though ample in scope, leaving all elaboration and the establishment of inferior courts to legis lative action. In the newer States, the Constitutions frequently outline the judicial system at some length from the highest to the lowest court, leaving little to statutory enactment.
The highest court in any State is almost universally presided over by a chief justice, vested with authority over the ordering of the business of the court. His selection may follow one of several modes :—(I) In States where judges are appointed, as in Massa chusetts, the chief justice is himself chosen by the appointing authority, usually the governor, who acts sometimes with the consent of the governor's council and sometimes with the advice and consent of the upper house of the legislature, as in the case of the Maryland court of appeals. (2) In a large number of States the judges are elected by the people for terms varying from 6 to 12 years, and there are regular elections of new judges at intervals shorter than the term of office, usually every two years. The chief justice in such instances is the judge whose term is most nearly at an end, providing he has not been specially appointed or elected to fill a vacancy. Thus the judge who has been longest on the court is its leader. This principle, applied sometimes in slightly different ways, is followed, for example, in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, Pennsylvania and other States. (3) In Illinois the Supreme Court judges, after election, select one of their own number as chief justice. (4) In Florida the chief justice is selected by lot from the judges elected to the highest court.
The chief justice in the highest State courts is not only the presiding judge when the court is sitting in banc. He likewise has charge of the distribution of the work of the court among its several judges. In some States, such as California, where the State is divided into departments and the work of the judges of the court of last resort consists both in hearing cases in the various judicial departments and also in hearing cases appealed to the court sitting as a whole, the chief justice frequently has authority to apportion business among the departments, may order any cause to be heard and decided by the court in bane, and may convene the full court at any time.
In Delaware a somewhat specialized system is in operation. There a chancellor, chief justice and four associate judges are appointed by the governor with the consent of a majority of the senate. The chancellor, as the name implies, exercises a final authority over equity matters in all equity cases except those which are appealed to the court of last resort. In that event the chief justice sits with associate judges to hear the appeal, the chancellor always being absent. Where, however, law, as opposed to equity matters come before the final court, the chief justice yields his place to the chancellor, who in turn sits with the asso ciate judges as the court of last resort. A somewhat similar dif ferentiation between law and equity exists in New Jersey.
Through the promulgation of rules the courts of last resort in the various States frequently exercise an important regulatory power over the inferior courts, in that way marking the course of procedure in the handling of judicial business. But this regulation is normally only of the more general type and the inferior courts themselves, being more intimately acquainted with their own problems, are usually given considerable freedom in the ordering of their affairs through the establishment of their own rules.
(R. P. B.)