Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-06-24
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. "a, 1886
The Cluyerius Case.

JuktiCo Vi AioomoS
whole argument apon the constitutional
provision which be quotes. II his ar
rument is sound, and the Supreme
Court Of Appeals had reversed the
rulings and judgment Of the court below
under circumstances similar to those
under which II affirmed them, then Gu
yERIus would have to be hanged
notwithstanding that reversal. Gould
Governor LEE order his execution to
take place in spite Of that judgment Of
reversal? Nobody will contend that
he could. No more can Governor LEE
pretend as the case now stands to sit in
Judgment upon the acts Of the Supreme
Court of Appeals, or presume to decide
that the execution of CLUvERrUs
has not been "adjudged in conformity
TO the laws Of the land" The present
Governor is not q lawyer, but that does
not matter. If the ablest lawyer in the
Commonwealth could as Governor re-
verse the Supreme Court of Appeals,
Governor LEE has the same right thus
to mipgle and muddle the functions Of
the Executive and the Legislature.
Secondly, the Supreme Court of APP
peals, in deciding the CLUvERTUs case,
substantially decided the very question
raised by our correspondent. 1t decided
in effect that it was constitutional thus
TO condemn 0 man to death. Recollect
that the Supreme Court Of Appeals is
the court of last resort in cases Of the
kind now under consideration. What
ever it declares to be law is law. No
United States Court can interpose. No
appeal can be had. Its decisions are
final and irreversible. And it is this
tribunal which has adjudged that Gu
yERIus has been condemned to death
according to the law Of the land. The
constitutional provision which our cor
respondent quotes is part of this law
Of the land.
Thirdly, the decision must precede
the assignment of reasons. The SD
preme Court Of Appeals hears the ar
gument and the judges retire for con-
sultation. The president Of the court
asks each judge how he would have the
case decided. Let US suppose that all
five judges agree as to what the deci-
sion ought to be, but that no two agree
a. to the reasons. What difference
does it make as to the righteousness OF
the decision? Law professors tell
th,ir pupils that Chief-Justice MAR
SHALL used to render decisions and
then tell Mr.. Justice STORY to hunt
up tie law or the reasons for them. ln
one Of the Virginia cases decided within
the last few years by the Supreme
Court Of the United States one Of the
Justices who concurred in the decision
said that he did not concur in the rea'
sons given for it.
Fourthly, conceding that the consti'
tutional provision quoted by our cor
respondent is mandatory, and moi
merely directory, We hold that it il
obsyed when the majority of the judge;
state in writing "the reasons there
for,n whether any two Of the judges
concur as to oil the reasons or not. II
10 sufficient that majority concur in
the decision. The opinion does no,
bind the Supreme Court of Appeal:
itself, that tribunal having the right t.
reverse its own decisions /; and surely
the greater variety of reasons given fol
. decision the more likely will th,
courts below be to End reason tina
will commend the decision 10 their ap
proyal.
Filthy, If the Supreme Court Of APP
psals "cannot reverse or affirm with
out reasons" then in the case undo
consideration, Judge ATKINS, Of tn
nussinss Court Of Richmond, has
Y 1ieht to disregard the mandate Of tn
appellate court until no is farnishe
with these reasons, or else the dictur
quoted can have no practical effects
More: II the Supreme Court Of Az
psals "cannot reverse or affirm with
out reasons" il cannot reverse o
affirm without fling these reason
with the record in the case" I
every judge in Virginia entitled to hav
lhis latter fact officially certified to hin
bsfore the opinion Of the Court Of Ap
ptsls becomes binding upon hims
I" Must not . decision Of the Supreme
Z Court Of Appeals rest upon reasons ID
which at least majority Of the jadge'
copcur:" There must be reasons as
sigped which control the judgments o.
3 majority Of The judges, ba, il does
not follow that . majority Of them mus
concur in each one Of the reasons. Il
8 sufficient il each Of ,hs majority
eiyss The reasons which induced bin 70
<spcus IN the decision. The prscties in
~ supssips Court Of Appeals ja'siass
= b making this svsSnsst
Like our esvrsspql ~ - tx press
. ',,.s y =. I, 0t 4,