Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-06-24

AN IMPORTANT LEGAL AND coNsTI-
TUTI0NAL QUESTION.
TO lie Editor of the Dispafch:
What Is the legal effect Of the dsci'
sion Of the Corrt Of Appeals in the case
of Thomas j. CIuysrius II seems TO
me this il . very important constitu-
tional and legal question, and certainly
should be considered and determined
while the decision is yet under the con-
troll Of the court and the doom Of the
unfortunate man IL not irrevocsoiy
sealed. The fourth section OF Article
vi. of the State Constitution is IS fol-
lows: +" When q Judgment or decree is
reversed or affirmed by the Supreme
Court Of Appeals the reasons therefor
shall be stated in writing and preserved
with the record Of the case" This
provision Of the Constitution is clearly
mandatory. The Court cannot reverse
or affirm without reasons, and the req
sons upon which the reversal or affirm
snce rests must be stated IN writing
and filed or preserved c'th the record Of
the case. The decision Of the court
not only disposes Of the particular case,
but 1t becomes authority for subse-
quent cases. II is, then, Of the first
importance that the reasons upon which
the decision rests be in writing and pre-
served with the record. 1t is exceed
ingly important in the Cluverius case
to determine the just relation OF the
reasons Of the court to the decision OF
the court. Can any judgment Of either
reversal or affirmance be entered I'M
less it rests upon roasons-the reasons
contemplated by the Constitutions And
must it not rest upon reasons in which
at least majority Of the court concurs,
il three or five of the judges are sitting!
Can the decision of the court be made
to rest upon reasons satisfactory to
minority Of the court? In the Gu
verius case it is reported that Judge
Hinton dissented upon the merits and
was in favor of reversing the judg-
ment Of the Hastings Court.
Judge Fauntleroy delivered an opin-
ion, which is the one filed in
the record as giving the reasons for
the affirmance. Judge Lewis concurred
in this opinion. 1t is reported that
Judges Lacy and Richardson concurred
in the judgment, but did not concur in
the opinion Of Judge Fauntleroy. Now,
as the case stands, have we not deci-
sion, which is to terminate human life,
resting upon reasons unsatisfactory to
three Of the FIVE judges? 1t seems so
to me, and if so, has not the section Of
the Constitution above quoted been
clearly violated? think the reasons
required by the Constitution must be
such as meets the approval of majority
Of the court. The opinion of the court
is but another name for the reasons
Of the court, and this opinion is with
out authority, even persuasive authority,
unless concurred in by q majority of the
Judges. do not mean to intimate that
the decision of the court was not what
the law and the evidence required it
should be, but submit it is
matter of the first Importance that
decision carrying with it such tre-
mendous results-the taking of human
life-should be made to rest on reasons
in which a majority of the judges
shall concur. think the Constitution
clearly requires this. Humanity would
seem to require it. 1t is to be hoped
that before the case is finally disposed
of, in September, that reasons in which
q majority Of the judges shall concur
will be put with the record to be pre-
served as required by the Constitution.
Unless this is done very serious and
question might have to be
solved by the Governor for l take it
that the Governor would allow no man
to be executed unless his execution had
been adjudged in conformity to the laws
of the land. The judgment of the
Hastings Court had better be reversed
than to allow its affirmsnce to rest upon
reasons not satisfactory to majority
of the judges.
JUSTICE OF ALBEMARLE.
June IA, 1886.