Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-07-08

EpnnE. business ManaECA- AVN ~
should be recognised.
IN comparison with the Judiciary,
it signifies very little to the masses OF
The people who may be Governor. He
n almost powerless, and the office
more gratifes the ambition OF a man
than affects the fortunes Of the State.
So, incapable or eOrruptlawgiyers may
sit in the General Assembly, but their
foIIies or crimes can only operate dis
~astrously through two years. Besides
all this. the constitution itself restricts
their capacity for mischief, and we
must confess that however Imperfect
our unshapely and ill-defned system
of organic law, it subserves a most
benefcent end in limiting the field OF
action in which our marvellous law
rivers move and have their being.
Not 50 with the Supreme Court Of
Tennessee. Its potency for GOOD or
evil IS almost Hmitless. Since the
close Of the wal the people Of this
State have surely experienced Gd
Unuseam all the evils Of an incompe-
tent Supreme Bench-enOugh, surely,
10 make US nervously anxious as to
the character and intellectual Worth
of men who may sit as members Of
that high tribunal through the next
eight Ii we have an unworthy
or incapable bench, what an
eternity must we deem these
endless years. 1t is al
most doubtful whether a fool or
knave is to be preferred in this exalted
place. inducements to give a corrupt
Judgment may be frequent enough,
but opportunities to cover it with a
decent pretense, always essential, are
not very frequent. Hence the deci-
siOns Of an unfair court, If it have
talent, will in the main be correct.
Against ignorance or stupidity there
is no recourse, no protection. The re-
suit, ike death, is certain and no one.
knows when or to whom the disas-
ter may occur. We do not say that
the Supreme Court of Tennessee, since
the war, has been corrupt-sUch an al
legation is untrue; but at times we
have thought it coWardly. Nor will
we a that each member of the.
Court has been ignorant. Some
who have worn the ermine
during this period have been respect
able in attachments and capacity.
Yet with all these admissions-the
most indulgent that can be made-the.
average incapaeity Of our Supreme
Court since the war has been fearful.
Wehave heard COUNSEL say that in
stead Of their Iabors being diminished
when they entered this Court (as
should always be the ease), they were
increased. They were afraid to trust
anything to the intelligence Of the
judges, and scarcely ever presumed
that the court liner any kGs0y Every
case was argued at stripe, a it.
were. For the want of skill.
and knowledge in the Court
in handling records and de-
termining causes, as also because Of
the utter want Of confidence on the.
part Of the bar in that court, ~necessi-
tating long briefs and longer. oral ar
guments, the dOckets remain undis-
posed OF, and Iitigants have been.
ruined by delay IN deciding these
causes. They were between two horns
Of a dilemma, either in danger Of being.
ruined by the ignorance Of the court
in dispOsing Of the cause, or ruined
by the delay of the cause, resulting
from the inability Of the court to dis
patch business. 1t is said that many.
decisions Of this court Announcing
principles Of Law not recognized by
the profession, and holding points Of
practice never before received or found
in the books, slumber quietly amid
unpublished manuscript opinions, la
bic at any moment to be dug uD BY
some counsel familiar with their
hiding place, and sprung on some I'M
wary attorney or unfortunate client.
The truth is, it was not designed
that these opinions should be sub
jected to the test Of professional criti-
cism. We learn that it was spoken
of with surprise by the court in
one instance, that counsel asking
them to rebear a cause on a
JaU proposition, had made a
full argument ef the point Of
law personally ruled against him;
a if q reheorulg could reasonably be
expected on q question Of Law, unless
the court could beconvinced that its
previous decision was error. How
could such a conviction result unless
1t was fully argued? Yet a sspient
post 6eUtHmc court treated this generally.
recognized and absolutely necessary
fullness of argument as something
quite uncanOnical. Time would faH us
to even to allude TO all the foIIies that
have since the conclusion Of the war.
in this forum, defaced the hitheIto
brilliant Judicial fame Of Tennessee.
We have no unkiBd purpose IN re-
terring to these things. Our only OBJ
ject is to point a moral" not q to
sdorn a tale" We desire to hold up
these matters merely as a warning.
We do not want for eight years q
bench owe which any lawyer or
coterie Of lawyers can BOAST a greater
influence than the merit Of their caase
OF the vigor of its presentation may
give them. We learn that it has been
too much the habit recently for atter-
neys praetieing before the supreme