The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-04-19
Judicial Records.

A correspondent of the Meridian Home
stead and Observer has made careful ex-
animation of the Supreme Court Records as
contained in volumes 50 to 5S inclusive, OF
the Mississippi Reports, and gives the fol-
lowing statistics in regard to the Judges
appointed by Gov. Stone:
The average per cent. of cases affirmed at
554 per cent. and of cases reversed AT per
cent Below is the record of the percentage
of each Judge:
Judge Green-Affirmed, IL per cent; re-
versed, 58 per cent.
Judge Watson-Afirmed, 60 per cent;
reversed, 40 per cent.
Judge PowelI-Affrmed, 42 per cent;
reversed, So per cent.
Judge Trimble-Affirmed, 30 per cent;
reversed, so per cent.
Judge Cothran-Affrmed, SO per cent;
reversed, 81 per cent
Judge Arnold-Afirmed, 60 per cent;
reversed, 80 per cent.
Judge Hamm-Afirmed, 62 per cent;
reversed, 39 per cent.
Judge Mayers-Afirmed, 80 per cent;
reversed, 20 per cent.
Judge Calhoun-Afirmed, SO per cent;
reversed, 81 per cent.
Judge Smylie-Affirmed, 81 per cent;
Judge Chrisman-Afirmed, II per cent;
reversed, % per cent.
Judge Young-Afirmed, 45 per cent;
reversed, 50 per cent.
Judge Chrisman has the best record, and
next come in equal pace Judge Calhoun
and the late Judge Cothran. Judge
Mayors seems to be the most unfortunate on
the list.
EDITORS CLARION | have copied above
a slip that find going the rounds OF the
press, and which is doubtless, thought by
the author, to furnish a fair criterion by
which the efficiency of our judges can be
tested-it is fallacious and deusive. Under
this test, the best Judge in the State can be
put at the foot of the class, and the most
Indifferent can be placed at the head. Let
US illustrate: This test places Judge Chris
man at the head and Judge Mayors at the
foot. eve desire it understood that We
here use the names of these learned judges
without any thought of comparison and
simply for illustration, their names being
used in the slip we are dlscusslng.) sup
pose that 100 appeals have been taken from
the rulings of each Of these able judges;
that Judge Mayors has been affirmed 93
times and reversed 7, and Judge Chrisman
Now, suppose only 10 of the cases from each
Judge, are ordered by the Supreme Court to
be reported Might not this test leave the
cases standing thus in the books2 Mayors,
affirmed per cent, reversed 7 per cent;
Chrsman affirmed per cent, reversed )
per. cent; Mayors affirmed 80 per cent, re-
versed 20 pei cent; Chrisman affirmed 40
per cent, reversed 30 per cent. But this
yet does not show the full extent OF the de-
lusiyeness of this criterion as a test. Let
US suppose further, that Judge Mayors
has been on the bench six years, and Judge
Chrisman three; then let us proceed on the
above basis and preserve the same ratio
OF cases appealed and reported in the
books What would be the result? 1t
would, of course, BE- to increase an hundred
fold the effect of the legerdemain above
pointed out But still, this is not all. Let
US suppose that these learned Judges have
been on the bench the same length OF time,
and have each tried 5000 cases; that one
has ruled enormously in 1000, and correct
| Iy in 1000. That the other has ruled erro-
neously in 1900 cases and correctly in
900. Now, let us suppose that the trst
| has an impassionate clear-headed, learned
| bar, and they take before the Supreme
| Court, for correction, the whole of his 1000
|
suppose that the second has . pugnacious,
foggy-headed bar, and they take before the
| Supreme Court his ,000 correct rulings and
| none other. Is it not clear under the test,
we are discussing, the learned judge would
| "be the most unfortunate on the list" and
| the unlearned one be converted into
Judge "learned above his felows?" Again,
to give this testany value, you must assume
| that the Supreme Court always rules cor
rectly on the points before it. and the cases
reported reversed, are correctly reversed,
and those reported affirmed, are correctly
affirmed. This is an unwarranted assump-
ton. Every lawyer understands that
| Judges of the inferior courts, are bound to
! follow the decisions of the Supreme Court,
and he knows that our Supreme Court is,
not only frequently explaining and modl-
| fying its decisions heretofore made, but, IN
many instances everruling them outright,
and reversing the decisions of subordinate
| Judges based upon the cases oVerruled, or
explained away thus.
If there was an appeal from the supreme
Court to another tribunal, composed OF
| infallible judges, can the correspondent OF
| the Observer give us an idea of the num-
Der of appeals that would have been taken
| from the decisions, from which he has taken
his per centum, and the number of times
our Supreme Court would have been re.
versed, and the judges below, affirmed? If
the correspondent Of the Meridian Home
stead and Observer desires to do our judges
justice, he must go back and bring forward
the entire record of each judge, including
every ruling that he has made, together
with the facts upon which the ruling was
based and present these to the public: Let
him do this, or, let the subject Of their
respective and relative merits alone.
| HERNANDo.