The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1882-04-19

sunrems Court. No. 2.

The right Of public criticism Of Judicial acts IS
not open 70 question; but, in order to be legal 1t
must BE- fair and free from malice, and based on
correct statement Of the facts in the case under
review / have heard the view expressed. that
Judicial criticism should b. confined to Law jour
mails. because they address readers who are spe-
cially qualified to form an intelligent opinion in
such matters. / do not coincide in this view.
Tribunals Of justice are created solely for the pub
lic interests in no imaginable way are these inter
ssts sbseryed by placing such tribunals above the
bar Of public opinion. 1t IS true that judges can
not with propriety enter into public discussion
in defence Of the views Of law which they may
have announeed but as the public are concerned
in tho-e views why should not the public discuss
them 1t would be rare indeed that no one could
be found TO defend courts from any unfair view Of
their Judicial acts The Penal Code itself fur
uishe- ample remedy by sentence Of fine and i'm
prisoument for any unjust or malicious publiea-
tiou. Uuintelligent unjust criticism Is easily
shown up and silenced. The danger rather is, Of
a lack Of intelligent. honest impartial newspaper
discussion Of what goes on in Courts Of justice.
Every act and word done and said there Is made
the subject of ample arraigument by suitors who
lose their cases, and BY lawyers who make up Tor
not having the last word in public BY having II
out In private circles. Thus injustice and false
Impressions may result from the absence Of fair
public discussion,
Il i not pretended that invective, OF oarping or
parbled reporting Is ever allowable; but the effect
both on the public mind and on the judicial mind
u temperate carefully prepared consideration in
the public newspapers Of whatsoever opinion de
cree OF Judgment, Is worthy Of consideration as
affecting public interests is good. An independ-
eut and wen qualified bar do much to ward of
Judicial errors or tyrranyi bot lawyer arguing in
his case l. often in fact, and still oftener in the
"a a. I. =
Of expressing unp-eiudiced views Of law. II a
Judge thinks that the final public statement Of
cases in Court Is that which he himself presents,
there Is conceive, serious danger that his mental
olndinon may become even worse than that Of
many clergyman Who has no one 70 contest his
pulpit utterances- Friends Will IN private admon-
ish the clergyman that his theology Is getting IN
sound seldom indeed will a fIiend put his
head within the laws mouth, by trying to con
vince its exponent Of his errors communica-
tion IN the GkzTT of last week refers 70 decisions
made by the S1preme Court Of this Kingdom, de
eIaring that the Court IN Banco is oOmpetent b
make final iudgments when only tsO members are
sitting and that judge Of that Court who has
tired cause- may sit alone upon the Bench on ap-
peal Of the same case 10 a jury Those decisions
ara ngv the final Law Of the land, and will remain
80 uuless some lawyer shall get leave 10 re-argue
thea. and obtain their reversal J1densnts In the
most important cases II the United States Supreme
Court. like the decision upon the Legal Tenders
Act have met such public disappr0Tal as b cause
their rgcousiderafiOn and reversal The first Le-
gal Tender decision vas believed BY many 10 have
been malle under political and partisan pressure
It's reversal was certainly clearing up in the
judicial honz0u.
While every practicing lawyer must believe in
free, and Of cUurse- . respectful criticism Of
Courts Of ludicaturE, he may not take the time
requisite for such VUrk, unless IN matters Of gen
er4l cuucern. One does not care TO Tehash his OEn
CASES IN the neEsrapsrs and i takes considerable
time to examine Gases In which be has not been
oo1neTned- M0nsover, thsre Is q spicy effect pro
d1ced BY one EhD fights his own cases over again
IN newspaper, which Is Suggestive Of discomfort,
OF something more
Il ls no doubt generally supposed 70 be wiser for
Lawyers TO cDufne their arguments 20 the Court.
The lawyer must lose cases. and thsn may blame
himself his Client the Court or no one as be likes;