Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1873-12-15
rHE SUPREME COURT AGAIN.

In A former editorial, we took some
notice of an article which appeared in
the Avalanche signed Reform" and
copied by other newspapers, rejecting
as we think, unjustly upon the Supreme
Court of our State, and especially upon
Judge Freeman Of that court. In this
editorial we stated facts fully showing
the fidelity with which the Judges Of tn e
Supreme Court discharge the onerous
duties oftheir position. The article crit
cised the decision Of the court in the case
OF Brown VS.. Hunt, called the Cousins
case" The case was, we are informed.
decided ia the Chaneery Court of this
county, and appealed to the Supreme
Court, which affirmed the decision Of the
Chancellor here. That article, and one
more recently published by the Ava
lanche, by the same author, is, we think,
unjust in its statements and criticism,
and improper in tone, and is in bad
taste, aud may foster improper feelings
and opinions as to our Supreme Court.
Written by lawyer, as these articles
evidently are, we are forced to the con-
clusion that he is too much excited, be-
cause opinions which he doubtless
strongly believed to be correct were not
considered so to be by the Judges Of the
Supreme Court, by the Chancellor in the
court here, and by other good law
yers. And so he is impelled to
make unjust charges. We believe
that our Supreme Court is com
posed Of Judges honest and learned,
and competent to understand the
law. and active to see that law and
justice are properly dispensed. We
had hoped that this writer, who signs
himself Reform" would soon regret
his unjust language and action, and so
reform himself as not to fall again
into error. Bat we see that he appears
again in the Avalanche, presses the
subject, assumes to know the law better
than all Of the Judges and to rebuke
them quite severely. His feelings
may be natural; they are never
theless wrong, and the exhibition of
them and his nnwarranted attack
upon our Judiciary ia the public press,
must be, and we are sure are. condemned
by the legal fraternity, and by all who
have high regard for the dignity OF the
law and its properly constituted, learned
expounders. We have inquired some
what into the history of the case, upon
the decision of which Reform makes
mis- heavy charges against our judges
BE would have us believe, he being their
Judge, that they are hasty, careless,
slothful, unjust and unlearned in the
law. And he proposes, i: seems, to ex-
pose them as such, and, to use bis own
language, to make them know better"
Upon inquiring, we find that the suit of
Brown VS. Hunt was instituted by Par
ham & Williamson. as solicitors, in
behalf of the surviving children Of
George P. Cooper, deceased, claim
ing certain property, which was
also claimed BY Mr.. Cousins, and
asking for the construction Of the
will Of Cooper. The decision of the
case depended, as the opinion Of the |
Supreme Court shows, upon the con-
atruction Of will--not very long one.
The Chancellor decided the case, after
lengthy argument, and on appeal 70 the |
Supreme Court his decision. after full |.
was affirmed by the Supreme
Court. The entire matter seems to have
been the construction of = few written
These sentences are read |
by or to the Supreme Court in full |
bench. the law is cited, and the case is
argued before all of the judges, and the |
case is decided, Freeman, Judge, deliver
ing that opinion We are not of the legal
profession, bat when we read this will
as cited by the Supreme Court in theiF !
opinion we cannot see how it could be !
decided 10 mean anything else but what
they say it means. There seems to us
much good judgment in the decision in
the Cousins case, when the Supreme
Court, after showing how "by a nice
and subtle verbal logic acute thinkers
have been led to adopt arbitrary rules
or deduce them from precedeHts, which |
in full as many cases entirely defeat
the purpose aud will of the testator as
carry out that intention" proceeds to
say: I'VE are not Inclined to add
TO the number Of such presidents where
the intention Of the testator can fairly
be arrived at, and violate no rule of
public policy or law" When the judi
ciary is improperly assailed it should be
amply vindicated. In this day, when so
little veneration for high position, and
so little respect for authority, is exhib.
tied, we are panied to see intelligent
gentlemen, especially lawyers, unjustly
assail the purity, integrity and efficiency
Of our Supreme Judiciary.
-a-o-
Tbs nomination OF Attorney General
Williams for Chief Justice has not vet