New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-04-20
JUDICIAL INFALLIBILIrY

There is no class of men in the whole world on
whom such constant fattery 10 bestowed, and
who are so much made the objects Of q sort Of
divine worship as our American Judges; nor is
it to be wondered ct If such perpetual stream Of
fattery should little turn their heads. In fact,
the attributes essential to Judge, BY the theory
of the common law, are almost tho same which
the canon or ecclesiastical law ascribes to q
Bishop. A Bishop, by the imposition Of hands
upon him in his mnistrstion, IL supposed to
become Inspired and holy. Az mau, his
conduct may be scandalous and outrageous to
tie highest degree, but all that he does as
Bishop, 20 long as he remains unstripped Of his
roles carries with 1t certain odOr Of superhu-
man sanctity. Very simiiaris theory Of the law
as to Judges. Asmen, of the bench their opinions
may be entitled to more or less respect, accord
ing to their reputation for learning, sound judg-
nent, rectitude and impsrtiality. On the bench,
as Judges, they become at once inspired. The
very law itself is supposed to speak with author.
ity through their mouthsj nor while they utter
their opinions, Dor in Oppositi0n to those opin-
ions otter they are delivered, is any dog to be al
lowed to bark.
Now all this did very well 50 long a. the old
fashion was kept up by the Judges Of merely pro-
nouncipg their decision In q case without giving
any reasons for il. Under thai system 1t was
possible to presume that there must be good and
satisfactory reasons for every opinion, however
extraordinary, did one but know what those
reasons were. The ways of the judges, like
those Of Providence, might be inscrutible and
mysterious; our ignorance might not be abe to
comprehend or to eIpound them, but duty re.
ouired us to accept them a. right. Some stretch Of
fifth might be required. but No direct conflict
with reason was involved in tue process.
But under the modern Practice, introduced
within the last century and salf but which
prevailing usage imposes, and which even the
.t.tute law of some of the States reqnsres-the
practice of giving the reasons for their opinions
the Courts have been in great measure stripped
of that convenient cover to error and to blunder
which is absolutely essential to enable any mere
mortal to play the part Of an inflliOle. Everybody
has he ard Of the advice which Lord Mansfield gave
to Military officer appointed to judicial Sta
ton In the West IDdies-never to undertake to
1--WE reasons for his decisions since his reasons
might often be bad and insufficient, even In cases
where bis deci,ions were right. Now this is an
accident very liable to happen, even to Judges
professionally educated; while 1t is inevitable
that, 10 case Of wrong decison, the fact Of it,
wrorg ulness will be fully developed BY the very
character Of the reasons given to sustain it.
Inisllibility does not and cannot consent 70
arsue Lp.s dizsi-I have saidit, Is, and must be-
the VOID From the moment the Courts begaI
to give reasons they renouDced, In fact their pre-
tsnsions to infallioilisy; and whatever the sheor
my continue to be, or whatever the efocs OF
deci,iop Of Court a. to the individual case Be
fore it, no legal opinion or decision can nov
pretend to apy weight with the public q
large, except jost in proportion to the vslidiy Q
the reasons offered by Ito author 10 sustain II
But if this practice Of fottiting judici. opir
ions with reasons has striped the Courts {
their my biological character Of infA,ibllity it hs
added vsstly to the real soundness AMI gener
Justice Of their decisions. 1t il no longer poss
BE fox Judge, however corrupt, partial or II
disposed he may be, to make wgoug decision
without soltrivins and c,Dju,ipg up a pau'ib