Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-02-24

HoCA9Aoh Vi the supreme Court on q con-
stitutional question, and refuses to be
governed by such decision in his politi-
cal action, whether that decision be that
a Bank of the United States may consti-
~tutionally be established, or that a per-
son Of African descent cannot be a citizen
Of the United States.
1t is for this reason also that we are
opposed to the whole system of deliver
ing dissenting opinions. You may read
all the decisions of all the courts in
France from 1896 to this day, in all the
various books Of French Jurisprudence,
and You cannot find one such opinion.
They are not known there, and ought
not to be known in our law. They are
very often really indecent and d~isrespect-
ful criticism on the opinion of the ma
jority Of the court. Their object always
is, and If not their object, at least their
effect is, to weaken the authority of the
main opinion which, as it settles the law,
ought to go with the whole weight of
the court, especially as ii is, in law, the
Judgment of every judge, and as he who
dissents is absurdly criticizing the rea-
sons which led the other judges to the
conclusions which are and must be, in law,
his as well s theirs. 1t makes no diff
ference that the opinion is not right it
settles the law Notwithstanding and
one of the judges is lily set to work
when he bends all the energies of his
intellect to convince the losing party
that what he has lost he has unjustly
lost, and the public that the court is one
not worthy to be trusted with judicial
power. 1t is for the interest of the re-
public, the old maxim says, that some
where and at some time litigation should
end. That is the purpose in creating
courts OF last resort-to end %controver-
sies and dissenting opinions aim di-
rectly to prcreHt the attainment of this
end. A court composed of nine judges,
with two or three dissenting in every
difficult case, cannot long de-
lay TO fall into contempt. w
maintain the court that it may
settle the law, ut sit fms Htium, and
not that the members may in turn tell
US in long essays what one individually
thinks in opposition to the law so settled.
What he thinks, concerns nobody but
himself. If he cannot agree to the opin-
ion Of the rest, let him keep silence.
Let him cease to appeal to us from the
decision of the court. 1t is not for us to
settle such controversies.
1t may be answered that it is import
ant for the public to be put in possession
Of the whole argument on both sides, in
order that the error, if there be any, may
be corrected by the court in some subse-
quent case, when the question arises
again. When the question arises again,
let tt be argued and considered again,
and in the mean time let il rest. The
interest of the Republic requires that.
The truth is, that the purpose of dissent
ing opinions is to vindicate the consist
ency or exalt the reputation for sagacity
and sound Judgment of the dissenting
judge and it is not for that that the
people pay him and maintain q court.
1t is time that sound views were lncul-
Gated and prevailed upon this subject,
and that the true ground on which the
judgments of the Supreme Court are to
be heldSnclusive should be understood /;
for it has heretofore been the case that
parties, whenever party interests re-
quired it, have felt at liberty to refuse to
be governed in their course by the inter
probation of the Constitution adopted by
the Supreme Court wit9ut rejecting
that no party can exist very many years
without being sooner or later forced by
stress of necessity to insist on the con-
clusiveness of the Judgments of that
tribunal, and the obligation of all men to
submit to those Judgments,
1t Is a great and common error in
party tactics, for the sake of serving a
present purpose, or gaining a temporary
success, to set a bad precedent hat may
at some future time be turned against
ourselves; since such precedentsS hs the
proverb says of curses, always, like
chickens, come home to roost.
Thus the party which lately insisted
N universal acquiescence in the de-
cision of the Supreme Court Of the United
States in the case Of DRIED SCOTT, was
the same which assailed and set at
nought the decision OF the same court in
regard to the constitutionality of the
Bank of the United States; and whose
legislative and'executive action in regard
to that bank, and to the creation of a
successor to it, was based on the posi-
ton that hat decision was erroneous.
The Democratic convention held at
Baltimore in 1910 expressly declared, as
an article OF the creed of the party,
A" that Congress has no power to charter
a national bank u thus making il a
party test to refuse TO abide by the de-
cision Of the Supreme Court on that
point, and a cardinal tenet of the party,
to control it, action, that the Constitu-
ton was not as that tribunal had inter
preted it. It remained a part of its
creed until the war, while it was
during the same time d~enouncing
another party for not submitting
to the decision Of the same court On
another and equally debateable ques-
ton and it will probably not be many
years before those who now %denounce
that Tribunal for its recent decisions will
find themselves confronted with and
embarrassed by their present denuncia-
tions, when It becomes their policy or
interest to insist on the eoncluslveness
of some other judgment hereafter rem
dered by it. Georgia at n time defied
the Court and held in contempt its deci-
sion as to the rights of the Cherokees
and it was with somewhat of a bad grace,
that she afterwards insisted that Massa-
chusetts should submit to its decision in
regard to the capacity of negroes to
become citizens. 1t was long the fashion
to denounoe that Court as u tribunal in
fected with federal and eentralizing doc
trines, by those who were too short
oiShNCh AuAGcGC AiiAb NhC ChiJ hASAN "
which respect could be insured for its
decisions, when they should at some
subsequent day be more in accordance
democratic views, was to sustain
the authority of the Court even when
they were contrary to its ideas and
interests.
The republican party has now sue
ceeded to power, and e~ndeavoured to
r%evolutionize the bench by increasing the
number Of judges, and appointing to fill
The new places and vacancies, men whose
political views were known to agree with
It's own aud It may yet be regretfuly
remembered that partisan judges had
ltoretime been appointed that such az
1ointments are means of %offense, the
exclusive possession whereof cannot be
guaranteed in perpetuity to any one
and that the continuance OF the 7
yicious system must ultimately destroy
III confidence in the decisions OF The l
curt that have a political bearing, and :
o impair or utterly a~nnihIiate Its useful
less han which nc gIeater EVIL could ii
A