The New York Tombs Inside and Out! / Scenes and Reminiscences Coming Down to the Present. A Story Stranger Than Fiction, with an Historic Account of America's Most Famous Prison.

When on January 1st, 1896, the present Constitution of the State of New York took effect, there went out of existence the Court of Oyer and Terminer—a court whose quaint name accorded well with its interesting history and associations.

It was an exclusively criminal court, closely allied to the Supreme Court, and although unlike the “Circuit Court” not strictly a part of it, its judges were Supreme Court Justices assigned to hold it and interlocutory proceedings in actions pending therein were taken in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is now the highest court in this State having original jurisdiction—that is, having the power to hear the evidence in and determine actions commenced therein or removed thereto from an inferior court, as distinguished from the right to review on appeal. It may take cognizance of all manner of civil and criminal actions and proceedings triable in a State Court, except the impeachment of public officials, of which a quasi-criminal court—the Court for the Trial of Impeachments—alone has jurisdiction.

In New York County, one part of the Supreme Court is usually devoted to the trial of criminal actions, and that part ordinarily sits each month in the year, except July, August and September.

Cases that, because of the nature or circumstances of the crime charged or the prominence of the persons involved, are of particular public interest or importance are usually tried in the Supreme Court.

There are material advantages to the accused in being tried in this court. The proceedings are apt to be more deliberate. The justices are experts in Civil Law, and have the advantage of the training which results from contact with the best legal minds and the consideration of the many difficult and important questions that arise in civil practice.

The range of the criminal law as compared with the civil, is very narrow. The experience of the practitioner at the criminal bar tends to develop forensic rather than reasoning faculties; to narrow the mind and sharpen the wits, rather than broaden and deepen the intellect; to make alert, cunning, effective cross-examiners and wielders of technicalities, rather than strong logicians, quick in the discernment of fundamental principles, and ready in their application to the case in hand.

Constant contact with the criminal classes, either as an advocate or in the exercise of judicial functions, has a tendency to deaden the sympathies, to lead to a complaisant view of the criminal as something inevitable, and to an indifference to the suffering that flows from his punishment. It results in an intuition and a preception of criminality in acts and persons where it frequently does not exist—in an unconscious predisposition to discover something sinister and evil in what may be innocent or merely injudicious.

It is not a slur on the gentlemen who, with marked ability, untiring industry and sincere conscientiousness dispense justice in other criminal courts to say that the Supreme Court justices who hold criminal terms of that court are their superiors in the qualities that make a good judge, because of their wider experience and consequently better judicial qualification, and because of their freedom from bias against the accused, except such as may be temperamental.

Variety in thinking is essential to the best mental effort. Contact with many minds develops the mentality. A judge of a court exclusively criminal meets but few members of the legal profession, and confines his attention to a very small range of subjects. If he grows intellectually, it is because he wanders outside of the four walls of his judicial duties. How much better it would be if his field of effort were enlarged, so that his work would increase rather than contract his capacities. It is not for us to suggest a remedy, although one could readily be found, so far as the higher courts are concerned, in the merging of the Court of General Sessions in the Supreme Court, and the holding of a greater number of parts of that court for the trial of criminal cases.

The Court of General Sessions

The Court of General Sessions of the Peace of New York County devotes its entire time to criminal matters. It is English in origin, and was established by them after they became masters of the colonies in the latter part of the seventeenth century. The prototype of the Court of General Sessions is found in all the counties of England, and is known as the Court of Quarter Sessions. Since this court was established in New York County, it has undergone many changes. At first, like its prototype, its sessions were held quarterly, but with the immense growth of criminal business in New York, its sessions are now held daily, with the exception of Saturday.

At present there are five parts of this Court that are in session nine months in the year. During the summer months two of the Courts close, which permits each judge to take a vacation. In each Court the District Attorney keeps two assistants, who prosecute all cases in the name of the people.

The General Session Judges at present are as follows: Judges Foster, Rosalsky, O’Sullivan, Mulqueen, Crain and Swann.