Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1874-11-11
Thc supreme COnrt.

Ghc supreme GOnrt
EDITORS CHRONICLE The T,0udon
intcs, Of the 3lst ultimo, assailiug the
r5cent decision of the Supreme Court
the case Of Breeder vs. Grigg, has
lust come under my observation. The
writer, among other things, says that
" lawyer who was employed by the
jmplainants. aud who investigated the
e2use. was perfectly surprised at the
decislon.h etc, This reference, it is be-
LEVIED, Is to me. Now / desire to no
-.fy gentlemen that I do not propose
% be thus used in what | conceive to
- an unjust, as well as an injudicious
assault on the Supreme Court. The
4Iit mentioned is but small affair, at
cest. il only involves about SlG0
The counsel who prosecuted the case
below being otherwise engaged, wrote
aud requested ME to argue the case for
tlcir client before the Supreme Court.
I accordingly made a hurried eXami-
nation Of the record, preparatory to
tie argument; but on learning that
The csnlplainants bad retained other
counsel, fully competent, declined 20
10 more, and left the case in charge Of
tle counsel whom the complainants
lad themselves selected
From the hasty examination made,
I found that the principal question in
v0lved in the case was one Of fact, to
Ne determined upon conflicting and
contradictory testimony. The Chancel-
Or had held for cOmplainants. But
lOm the slight examination made by
ne, was fearful his decree would bere-
versed, and after the decision of the
Supreme Court was announced by
a g..
ants counsel that the result was con-
trary to my expectations. But what
~ 1t? Is il to be sur posed that cas-
nal remark Of mine, of surprise at
tie result of suit, is of sufficient con
sequence to be paraded before the pubs
icin weekly village newspaper to
mpugu the correctness of the solemn
udments of the Court of last resort
n the State? Why this Court delivers.
very Saturday, not less than from 40
10 30 opinions, the result of the week 4
.abor. Is ii at all strange that lawyers
rgacticing in the Court should be oc-
casionally surprised or disappoint
"a at the results Of their cases ?
or is it unusual for them to utter their
dissent 70 the conclusions arrived at by
he Court? But it does not follow
mat they must appeal from the Court
10 the press. [ presume there never
vas Court that did not occasionally
err in some Of its judgments. Still, let
.heir errors be ever so numerous, they
10 more to preserve and advance society
than any other agency ever employed
by man. It Is a Commendahle quality
n q lawycr--that of persistenCy and
zeal in maintaining the cause of his
g,ient-aud this element in the Charac-
,erof the promisingyoung lawyer who
has appealed this cause from the Court
10 the press, properly directed, may do
much towards advancing him in his
profession. hut his chances fOra lVauCe.
ment would not be lessened by a recog.
itiOn on his part of the patent fact
hat he is as liable to cir in his judy
ment of intricate legal questions as the
Court. 1t may be conceded that
error Is inseparable from all ;hinC.
human. But the impartial iudg
lacnts Of trained and experience
Judicial minds are more reliable
Than the conclusions OF young and
impartial advocates, expressly retain
! and feed to maintain q side, anu
hat too in some eases against the
weight of evidence and the Justice 81
he case. Possibly the court may have
FRED in the great case Of Breeder vs.
Grigc. How this may be, do not
know, but the decision Of Chancellor
Temple, confirmed by the Supreme
Court, is entitled, think, to more re-
poet than theadvcrse Judgment Of any
disappointed Attorney and editor il
tennessee.
Please do me the iHyor, Messrs. Ed,
.1rs, to give this communication ;
place in to-mOrrow's CHRONICLE. L
IS intended more rs protest agains
The precedent set IN this instance, o.
appealing from the courts TO the news
papers, than rs defense Of the Su
Dreme Court; and will be obliged il
he Loudon Times will copy it.
Respectfully &c, JOHN BANTER
Knoxville, Nov. 8, 1874