The Portland gazette. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1818-1824, 1821-01-02
Supreme judicial Court.

No. III.
II was proposed in this number TO consider the
difference between the organization Oh the Su-
preme Judicial Court Of this State, and those Of
Massachusetts,, New York and some other States,
whose tribunals stand on high ground, by reason
ofthe learning displayed in thor reported desi-
sions. II is an ohserv atisn worthy of attentive
consideration, that the wisdom which is gained
by experience 10 best entitled 10 respect and
that those principles and rules Of proceeding
which have been found SANITARY 10 practice should
not be abandoned without substantial reasons.
Nearly twenty years since, an opinion became
general ia Massachusetts, that the Suprems Judi
oial Court as il was then organized and obliged
TO perform its duties was exposed to many en-
barra.sments, not only personally inconvenisnt to
the Judges, bat essentially affecting the interests
Of ALL whether suitors or criminals, who ware
called before them. The system then existing,
was a cumbrous and unwieldy machine, slow in
It's movements, and incapable of any profitable
discharge of its functions. Ths Judges moved
round the Commonwealth in one body ;--all Of
them participated in the trial OF every cause -
sometimes all Of then charged the jury, as it wa.
usually termed generally two or three Of the m
performed this duty lind having different views
Of III, facts, and holding different opinions upon
the law, il was no uncommon ease that tbs Judges
delivered TO the jury different set, Of instructions,
totally repugnant to each other, leaving the jury
to settle points and principles OF the greatest in
tricsey, about which the Court did not agree.
Expsrience proving that such system was insa-
pahs Of producing any bsnsieisl results, it was
at kugth abandoned, aud in its place q Court
was organized as ii noW stands in that Common
wealth. Usdsr this system we lived from the
time Of its establishment until we assumed our in
dependence as separate state.
Instead Of forming eur own Supreme Court upon
The model Of that with which we for 80 many
years have been acquainted, and continuing the
administration of public justics in the manner to
which we were accustomed, our Legislature
thought it most advisable to return to the old sYs
fem, imperfect as it il, and incapable of produc-
ing so much good 10 the community that from
which we have departed Far be il from me, in
khsse remarks, 70 suggest any thing IN the lesst
degree disre-psctiui 10 the Lssi5latUro- They
were actuated, un9ue stionably, by a regard to I,
the best interests of the state, in making the law
a. it stands. But 10 arranging the first move (
msnts of new machine, il is not strange that (
some of its details should be intended for mere
experiments, to be Afterwards changed the |
general interest may require and such seem to
hare bsea the views Of the Legislature respect
Ing this Law, by their limiting ITS duration to the
tenn Of three years. | believe, however, that a
mtrh shorter term will be sufficient to show it's
inc.nvenences and that the judges them
sevss consider the present. organization Of the
Court "a far lass calculated to insure correct de-
oisi,ns and the prompt administration of justice,
thslth former systsm. And it seems reasonable
That opinions Of gentlemen placed ia such
higt and responsible Offices should be regarded,
andmsy be followed with safety. If we are will
ling that our lives and property should be in
degree under their controul, can there be any
reason why we should not repose confidence in
thsiT judgment any question with which they
are perfectly acquainted?
The two most important points in which our
present system differs from the fsrmsr one, are
these:
lEt. As the law now stands, il Is made the dIty
Of az three Of the Judges 70 travel foies 10 each
year into fire Of the counties. aud once into the
other four: though two may hold the Coa when
the third is unable tie attend. According TO the
former law, any one Judge might hold the Court, !
and try all iury-causes, except capital cases.
I'd. By the former law, any person who felt
himself aggreved by the opinion decision of a /
Judge on question Of law, might file his excsp- |
tions 70 IL, aud have the question examined a |
second time by the whole Court. This right was |
srprssfly given to him and the Jsdge whose de-
eisoa was complained Of could not prevent this
Tehsaring Of the question 50 if, IN the trial OF s
cause, doubts as TO the law, the cause might
still proceed, aud vet the doubtful question misht
Of beth parties, AT tho suggestion ofthe Judge |
himself And, as no man is wise at all times, this /
opportunity for reflection and further examination
wa. Of vast Importance 20 all concerned. But as \
the law now stands, and in the present orgsnizs-
ton os the Court, the parties hare none Of these
rIghfs secured TO them BY IL. lfquestions of law
are reserved for argument aud investigation it is |
mere indulgence allowed by the Court, and |
which the parties cannot compel them to grant.
Nor is il to be expested that when three judy |
- unite in an opinion during the trial Of cause.
they will retrsct il the next day without any new
light on the subject. That pride Of opinion, which \
Is commoa to all men, would here act with double /
force to prevent the correction of such an error,
especially il not gross one, and obvious to every |
spectator. And it might even be a question |
whether II were net better that an error so Gem
y 1should be suffered to pass 10 silence. But
i,/He question were saved for farther exsmIns-
lion. with time fer consideration, and books at \
hand 70 be consulted, there would be pleasure
Ind a pride in correcting an erroneous opinion,
delivered in the hurry Of a trial, and formed
Without opportunity for due reflection.
ONE OF THE PEOPLE.
MR. SmRLEY-l was much gralihed by OBJ
Aryiug in your paper, that the Hon. Joshua
lad md rnnSanfod a h.rnnta = ranItaafe