Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1882-01-17

Constitutional power, not as jumbled, dis
membsrsd or locked by nominal and per-
tunetory reporter. Anything less would i'm
pair the value aud authority of the reports,
would be unjust to the Court, depriving it Of
the credit of an able or wise decision, and
freeing II from responsibility for weak and
vicious judgments.
1t Is NO answer to say that The revisors for>
bid the condensation OF tie syllsbuses. The
opinions give the reasons and the Limitations
OF the rulings embodied in the syllabuses.
and the authorities on which they are rested.
No counsel would venture to advise on a syl-
labus alone, because he knows not only that
the reason OF the law is the law, but tbn. our
Ia" which aims to apply the dictates of
natural justice aud ei cultivated reason to
particular cases, can not be formulated into
general and abstrsu, propositions else il
might seldom be necessary 10 publish more
than the syll.buses of cases decided. And
80 1t ia only from q study of the syllabus of a
sass, In connection with a fair ststemea, Of
tha case, and of the reasons of the Court in
deciding 1t. shat she law is to be fully eath>
cred and when SO gathered it is just IS much
the law OF tbs State as the Statutory enact.
naentn OF tho Legislature; and if SO, there
can be no more excuse for the proposed
amendment thap there would be for a statute
Acts OF the Legislature, to prefix to each Act
the dates Whea it was introduced and when
enacted, and requiring hira to include q Ger.
tain number of Acts in = certain number of
pages, and if necessary to oondense any of
Thorn to force them into this arbitrary and
imasVable limit How would the reyisors
Hke 10 have Col PeJton trying his hand on
their proposed Code in this way? The only
prote1t on whioh the Legislature could do
Gently attempt 10 regulate the length of the
reports to be published, would be to save ex>
Peose to the State, bu. as the State sells her
reports at thu cost of publication, and even
tuall gets back nearly all the money ex-
pshded on them, this prefer: fsIls to the
ground.
Having shown, as We think, that this pros
posed legislative supervision of the Supreme
Court Is Intrinsies!ly improper, that i. has
no rea! excuse In economy, that it would
greatly impair il not destroy the value aud
authority of our reports, and that it would
violate tho comfy due from one grand divi-
sion of tho government to another, We will
briefly consider whether there is any reason
able ground for the oensure which its pro,
Posal implies, against the Court
And hrst the diligence of the Court is i'm
pugned by the provision to put al the head
OF each case the dates when it vas submitted
aud when decidsd. Upon inquiry made
before the present sitting Of the Court ct
Charleston, snd therefore NOS 10 cluding any
new cases which mature for hearing there.
we ascertaincd that there were bat eighty,
i've cases on tho docket of our Court of An
Peais. including those already argued and
submitted. In oaly three other States, viz ::
New Hampshire with ffy,fV Ne.ada with
thirty~threc, and Oregon with forty. eight, is
the business OF the Appellate Court so woil
up. In the remaining States the dockets
contain from one hundred to two thousand
cases. At it's last session in Wheeling the
Court decided some ffty>si1 cases, and during
the past year ii disposed of thirty cases more
than came upon its docket during that time.
We further learned that with the progress
already made on causes in the hands of the
Court, this entire docket OF eighty five cases
could be disposed of in some four months
labor. This We think cffectually disposss OF
any In putasioR on this score on tho Court
Again, suoh legislation would imply that
the Court hsa grown SO unreasonnLly and
outraseously nr0i'x in its opinions, as to JUS
tIty the Legislature in stopping out Of its own
province and putting this pointed rebuke
and coercion upon it. We have shown tina.
NO interest of the taxpayer requires this un>
usual action. We do not believe it can be
defended on nny other ground We are no
apologist for long judicial opinions where JUS
tice can bo done to cases By short ones. AL
most universal precedent and quite universal
opinion condemn them. IF asked our candid
views we might not greatly differ from the
rovlsors upon this abstract question. If they
should further say that the decisions of our
own Court might be improved and it's reputa.
ton advanced by greater brevity in the stste-
ment OF cases, moro severe condensation of
argument and more sparing quotation of su-
thoritles, we should answer them not q word
But in SO doing we would not for moment
concede that either they or we have right
to attempt to compel the Judges to concur
| with us in this opinion, and to force them by
law to bring their decisions within prescribed
limits, under penalty of having them trimmed
or heved into regulation length by the State
reporter.
Better forbid their publication altogether
than to usher them into the world under such
cae5arian operation and with such bups
and unskillful midwifery.
But in justice to tho Court it is proper to
say that the judges arc not unaware of the
current criticism on the length of their
opinions, nor oallous to it. They would glad
~ combine the desired brevitv, with the con.
solentious discharge of the high trusts COM
nltted to them, but they say it is made im-
possible by many reasons. And first. the re-
quirement of the Constitution to decide evcry
point fairly arising upon the record of a case
aud to state thcir reasons 10 writing, COM els
them to decide more points than other appel
late Courts in an equal number of cases, and
often to expand an opinion over many pages
which another Cour. would dispose of on
single point and in a single page Secondly,
they aim to give to every case on an average
several days of thorough and united invests
Gstinn and st,G,, ,rLora.s { u