The Hawaiian gazette., 1882-04-12
Communicated
The Sunrn1no Court.

! The Importance of the Supreme Court TO every
interest leads. people to watch its progress and
study its development with more than ordinary
scrutiny. The composition of the court its status
under the laws, its traditions and methods are all
matters which the public will weigh and approve
or condemn, and rightly, inasmuoh as the court
is for the public, and its officers are the servants
of the public.
Those who submit questions involving property
reputation, life and liberty to the decisions of
judges have right to demand that the Just settle
msnt Of such questions shall be the best work and
supremest object of the court, and that no other
consideration whatever shall be allowed to inter
fere with such work. Courts are not founded to
give opportunities to any to make regulations. OF
course the reputation of Judicial officers is i'm
portant, as the public confidence in the court is
IN a measure dependent upon that but such
confidence can only be satisfied by one who, keep
ing himself in state Of judicial freedom and inde
pendence, gives in the first place unbiase decis-
ions and in the second place reasonable proper
tion of correct ones. There is no other way but
this, path to judicial success in six easy les
sons"
Perhaps the chief criticism of our Supreme
Court is properly in relation to the unsatisfactory
nature of its appellate jurisdiction. The Court of
highest and final appeal for any case may be made
up of but two judges, one of whom has already
heard and decided the case. The Supreme Court
thus sitting in the persons of two judges
ruled that this is full court in banco under the
constitutional and statutory definitions and have
insisted upon carrying out the idea in practice in
spite Of the earnest and repeated protest of the
members Of the Bar. Again case may be APP
pealed from a judge of the Supreme Court sitting
Is the intermediate Court Of Oahu, to the Supreme
Court and there tried by jury under Il direction
of the same judge who has already decided the
case in the lower court The feelings of litigant
who appeals his case from the intermediate to the
a reasonable confidence in more favorable re-
suit from the new hearing before another court,
may he family imagined, when the same individ-
ual who gave him an unfavOrAble decision in the
lower court appears in the Supreme Court and
proceeds to direct the trial there The Civil Code
in section SD provides that judge shall g sit
alone on an appeal or new trial in any case in
which he may have given previous judgment"
and the court has ruled that judge who tries a
case with the assistance of a jury is not sitting
alone under the meaning of the Civil Code.
This may be correct ruling, but as the same
statute used in the first sentence the words . no
person shall SIT as judge in any case in which,, DC
the legislature may be supposed 10 have intended
to carry that meaning through the section, and
when they said that no judge shall " sit alone :
they meant that no Judge shall sit alone : jNdgr
DC OF IN other words, without being associated
with other persons sitting also as judges. Now
when the statute says judges it does not mean
jurors Even If the court Is intrin scally right in
their interpretation, the section 10 question was
not prepared for the event Of appeals from the
years before that court came into existence. The
position Of the court on this point, allowing a
judge 10 sit appeal from himself provided he
Is assisted by jury, necessitates the belief that
the legislature really considered that the situation
required the solemn enactment Of Law to prevent
our judges from trying singly appeals from them
selves, which If true would indeed be evidence of
an extraordinary and somewhat dangerous dovel-
Upment Of judicial zeal.
The main point however in this matter is not 50
much whether the court ID right or wrong in its
rulings, referred To- but whether not it is more
or less deficient in that sentiment which strictly
insists far pOssible IN keeI ing the appellate
tribunals independent and unbiased. II there is
such deficiency II Is very serious matter to the
public for whom appellate courts exist the inn |
preston certainly prevails that such Is the case
arising probably, partly frOm the decisions refer
red to and partly from the disposition the judges
show 10 more or less commit themselves by talk |
ing cases not before them but which are
likely ~ come up before them On appeal.
The organization Of the Supreme Court is |
admirably fitted for the judicial work Of the coun
try; a reorganization would be attended with |
considerable uncertainty and danger and ought |
not TO be attempted but with the present growing
dissatisfaction in the status of courts of final
appeal ii is highly probable that such change |
increasing the number of the judges will in the /
near future be suggested and more than this, will
receive the support Of some Of the best men in the
country, and this, simply for the sake of obtaining
an adequate appellate court.