speculating About JusticenCharles Rembar: The Law of thenLand: The Evolution of Our LegalnSystem; Simon & Schuster; NewnYork.nby Clarence B. Carsonn1 would like to know why one communicatesnwith United States DistrictnCourts on fourteen-inch-long paper andnwith Circuit Courts of Appeal on eleveninch-longnpaper. Beyond that, I wondernon what length and width paper onencommunicates with the Supreme Court,nif, that is, one can communicate withnthat august body. Unfortunately Mr.nRembar, who has done such a decisivenjob of filling us in on all sorts of arcanenartifacts of the law, has neglectednto cover the subject in his book.nIt is not entirely clear why Mr. Rembarnhas undertaken the arduous tasknof writing this rather lengthy volume.nNot for fun, I hope. Not, mind you,nthat there should be any doubt about hisnability to write on any subject henchooses. He is, after all, urbane, erudite,neven recondite, charming, informed,nliterate, has a way with words (in fact,nsometimes words have their way withnhim), and a man of broad interests. Norndo I object overmuch to his flights ofnspeculation or even his rambling onnabout things. Be that as it may, I raisenthe question because the book just doesnnot add up to much. Mr. Rembar lavishesnattention on medieval backgroundnand gives rather short shrift to developmentsnof the last two or three hundrednyears. There is a good deal more descriptionnof and chatter about trial bynordeal, battle and compurgation thannthe subject would appear to warrant. Itnis true that the common law was developednin the Middle Ages, as were annumber of legal practices, though innbarely recognizable form, but they arenDr. Carson’s latest book is The Worldnin the Grip of an Idea.nas the seed to the ear of corn, not tonbe neglected but not to dominate andnobscure it either.nYet Mr. Rembar has undertaken tonwrite on a subject of great importancento us. We look to the law to bring ornto maintain order, to punish transgressors,nto settle disputes and, by so doing,nto provide a setting within which civilizationncan not only survive but evennflourish. Our legal system is a shambles.nCriminal cases do not go on trialnfor many months in some jurisdictions.nMost of them never do, for plea bargainingnhas become the standard method forndisposing of them. Compromise, a politicalnvirtue, replaces justice in so manynof these cases. Trials, both criminalnand civil, are often very nearly interminablenaffairs. Then there are the appealsnupon appeals which may go on fornyears before a final resolution is reached,nif one ever is. Mr. Rembar thinks trialnby ordeal was banished in the MiddlenAges. On the contrary, it has been revivednin our time. The ordeal now is tonsee which party can outlast the othernthrough all the waiting for the trial,nthrough all the meticulous informationgatheringnand, finally, through appealnafter appeal. All the while, justice frustratedncreates lesions which fester andnswell, and disorder spreads.nNone of this much disturbs Mr. Rem­nnnbar, although he may occasionally makena ritual lament about justice delayednbeing justice denied. I gather, instead,nthat he thinks we are well on our waynto establishing justice, finally, in thenUnited States, and that we may have arrivednwhen we place enough obstaclesnin the way of law enforcement, make itnvirtually impossible to introduce evidencenof guilt in a court of law, andnwhen the appeal process is made morenreadily available to everyone.nMeanwhile he does see room for improvementnhere and there. If he didn’t,nhis credentials as a liberal might comeninto question, even despite his yeomannservice to the cause in getting lawsnagainst obscenity negated. He does thinkncourts ought to do a bit more aboutnrelevancy in depositions taken in civilnsuits. Nothing drastic, of course, justnrein in a bit the excessive curiosity ofnthe more imaginative inquisitors. Anyonenwho has ever been deposed by wellpaidncorporate lawyers or salaried governmentnattorneys will appreciate thenproblem. A fishing expedition down annarrow stream might be tolerable, butnthey are no sooner under way than theynhead out to sea. Since the source of thenproblem is probably epistemologicaln(that is, arising from the notion thatntruth emerges from empirical evidence,nespecially mountains of it, a belief onlynslightly more plausible than that of thendiscredited biological theory of spontaneousngeneration), since Mr. Rembar’snphilosophical acumen may not ascendnto that realm, and since he considersnit a fairly minor problem anyway, henoffers no more than the palliative ofnjudicial strictness as a solution.nOur system does have one seriousnshortcoming, as Counselor Rembar seesnit. It is that most people cannot affordnthe legal services which would assurenthat they get justice. The solution tonthe problem, he thinks, is to have government-paidnattorneys available to all.nTrue, that would be socialistic, but henw^^^m^^mm^^^nJanttary/February 1981n