Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-01-09
TIE SUPREME COURT OF TEN
EESSEE


SESSEE.
Tie Ea0suiUe Car0Ricge Of the 6th
inst, reproduces the following article
from the Cincinnati Commercial:
''wHY DON'T THE TENNESSEE LAWYERS
sTRIKE?'
"The lawyers of Tennessee do not
like their Supreme Court. Lawyers
generally have no great esteem for
Judges who decide cases against them,
but as there are two sides to a question
and usually several lawyers to a side,
1t Is impossible to please everybody. In
Tennessee, however, the lawyers ON
both sides seem TO be of the opinion
that the Supreme Court is not what
it ought to be, and they are casting
about for some remedy. They complain
that the Court does not hold general con-
sultation upon the cases carried before
thelnbeforepronouncing opinions. They
leave the case to be decided by the
Judge who has the record Of 1t, and &C
cept his opinion as that Of the whole
bench. This makes their labors easier.
| 1t is not denied, however, that the
Judges do hold consultations, but 1t is
alleged these consultations reheld after
the opinion has been written up, and
do not usually affect its bearing upon
the case. The lawyers infer rather
than know this TO be the case, since
many of the opinions are so discredIta-
BILE that, as they think, it is not posi-
BILE the whole bench could have passed
upon them. Then the opinions are
often conflicting and often reverse
points of law long settled by the juris-
prudence Of the State. These and other
matters of discomfort have worked up
the lawyers to a condition of mutiny;
but how they propose to remedy this
state of affairs is not made clear. Why
don't they strike?"
So long as the criticisms of the Su-
preme Court of Tennessee continued to
be respectful, and so long as they con-
tinued to be confined to the limits of
the State, it was not deemed necessary
TO the vindieation Of justice, to the
truth Of impartial history, or the char
acter of the high tribunal in question,
to meet those criticisms otherwise
than by silence. It was felt that the
members of the legal profession, the
suitors whose causes had been, were
being, and were to be, decided by that
tribunal, and the people of the State in
general, possessed, within their own
knowledge and experience, a cOrrec-
tive against any unjust, improper or
injurious effects likely to result from
so much of said animadversions as
were based on error. But where such
attacks as these copied above are
made in the public journals of another
State of wide circulation, and much in
huence in shaping public sentiment, 1t
has been deemed by us proper and just
TO enmciate, in this form, our dissent.
The Supreme Court Of Tennessee, as
organized under the Constitution of
1870, Is temporarily composed of six
members. This was done IN view of
the large number OF causes then pend
ing in said Court, and likely thereafter
for several years to be brought before
it. As thus organized, the Court
could proceed to hear causes IN two
sections. In no other mode was it be-
lieved then, and the belief has been
justified by the event, could the accu-
mulated and increasing business Of the
court be disposed Of within any reason
able time. The new Constitution, and
especially that feature of it, received
the Appreciation Of the legal profession
and the people.
We shallbe pardoned for going some
what into detail. 1t is necessary for
the refutation Of the unjust assertions
Of the article In hand.
We take the case Of the dockets of
the Supreme Court at Nashville. We
know as to them, but we DO not know so
well as to the dockets at jackson and
Knoxville. The docket at Nashville
has contained upon it from twelve to
thirteen hundred cases every term
since the organization OF the present
court. Just as rapidly as the court
can dispose of the causes, they have ac-
cumulated on the docket. To meet this
vast labor, the Supreme Court of Ten
nessee has performed anamount Of work
Rersr equalled by any court in the
State. Each member has conscienti-
ously felt the pressure Of public duty
weighing on the court, and has con-
tributed his share Of faithful work to
discharged Norman who has disinterest-
edly witnessed its labors, it seems to
US, can fail to concur II this opinion.
1t is objected, however, that one
Judge takes the record in a cause; in
yestigates it; prepares an opinion; and
that the court, IN consultation, discuss
the opinion, and approve, reject, or
modify 1t. Take this statement as true
as to the mode in which the court pro-
ceeds with its business. How, other
wise, can the court make any reasona-
bic progress? The facts in the record
are rarely agreed upon by counsel.
They differ as to the evidence, and the
proper construction and weight thereof.
The facts must first be known by the
court. How shall the six members
come to such knowledge? Each section
can only hear half the causes argued.
As to the other half Of the causes, three
members Of the court are without the
aid of augmentation.
Shall each Judge be required to in
vestigate the facts in every case? This
is a physical impossibility, if any rea-
sonable progress shall be required in
disposing of the business.
The practice Of the Supreme Court
Of the United States is, as we are ad-
vised. variant from that of our Su-
preme Court. But, in that tribunal,
the transcripts of records, arguments
and briefs Of counsel are required TO be