Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-03-20
COURT OF APPEALS.
Ehs Charges Against Judges white and
Wilson 5tfted.
FORT WORTH, TEX, March Is, 1885.

To the Editor of the Gazette.
"Fiat justitia, c9lum ruat."' The at
tack upon Justices White and Wilson
of the Court Of Appeals, BY the Hon.
Temple Houston, is matter of grave
concern, well deserving Of notice and con-
sideration. The judiciary is the main
bulwark and safety Of our government.
In this attack, not alone is the character
of the parties asssiled involved, but also
that of the government and people who
have placed and continued them in their
exalted and important position. The
publication, coming as 1t does from q
state senator, bearing an illustrieus name
and gentleman Of recognized talent and
merit, lends consequence to its state
ments and weight to its title to consider
alton.
As one of the bar of Texas, 1 trust l
shall be pardoned for reviewing as briefly
as possible Mr.. Houston's charges.
After an exordium OF some length in
which he INDUCES in quite an eloquent
dissertation of the duties and
privileges Of . the citizsnI with
which We do not take issue,
he states, "there are two sides to every
question, there is but one side to fact,
and with facts alone l deal," and then as
the first count in his fact indictment,
"charges John P. White and Samuel A
Wilson with a palpsble violation Ct"
that part OF the constitution which says
the opinions of the Court of Appeals in
civil cases shall not be published unless
the publication Of such opinions shall be
required by law. Applying the ordinary
rules Of construction, we think 1t clear
= &C. H.lI
not publish unless required by law. The
language itself-the last words-show
this. What can "unless required by law"
mean other than requirement by law
that the state publish? The Legislature
surely could not compel an individual
to publish these opinions. It is clear
That the language means, that If The Leg
islature should see proper, it could re-
quire the state to publish these opinions
in like manner IS it requires it to publish
those OF the Supreme court. Then this
language explains the meaning of the in
terdict, which is that the state shall not
publish, etc. In the next place it would
be violation OF the constitutional guar
snty of the freedom of speech, the liberty
of the press, and the publicity of courts
II the gentleman's construction were cor
these opinions, no newspaper correspon-
dent should report them, the county
Judges and bar of the stste should
be kept in ignorance of them.
Is It possible to conceive that the trainers
Of the constitution could have intended
thisH The gentleman in his zeal to at
tack Judges White and Wilson has cast
q most whitening reflection upon the WIS
Hnr 4 afrfr Of Ia ~
vention assembled. Can it be possible |
had for its Appellate Judges Hepphill, |
Wheeler, Lipscomb, Roberts and Moore, |
could with "prescient vision foretell" that |
pellate bench that would have occupants |
that would Circulate doctrines that con-
fuse instead of enlightening, and that are |
st variance with law and common sense
and themselTes?" Did they desire to |
create st&s shamber? The plain inter
probation Of tbs constitution by its Ian
gusge, by the surrounding circumstances,
previous and cotemporareous legislation
the Supreme court decisions !,
and those of the Court Of Appeals in !
cases, and by the rules OF cem-
mon sense, was that the inhibition was
only against the state. 1t was not de-
signed that the opinions Of the Court of
Appeals in civil cases should be suthori-
tative, enduring presidents. 1t was fore
seen that there would naturally be con-
iicts between it's decisions and those of
the Supreme court, and 1t was intended |
that the opinions of the latter should con-
stitnte the official presidents,
Hence 1t was not considered necessary
for the state to go to the expense OF pub
fishing these opinions Of the Court OF
Appeals, unless the Legislature should
in some future time see ut to so provide. |
The second count seems to be sgainst |
the propriety of the books published by
the two justices. The condensed Cpin-
ions have certainly been very useful to
the bar. They have furnished necessary |
in a cheap, readily acceptable |
and lahor-saviug form. A knowledge OF |
these decisions is essential to successful |
practice in the county courts and Court |
of Appeals, and of much aid in practice in
District and Supreme courts. Many ques-
lions have been decided by the Court of
Appeals, not passed on by the Supreme |
court. These decisions are largely quoted |
by Posey in his Civil Digest, by
Sayles in his late valuable Annoted |
Digest, and by the Supreme court. |
These judges are emtnently fitted
to edit and publish their opinions
By reason of their familiarity with the |
matter, their training and their facilities |
In the way of notes and memoranda. 1t
is to be presumed that in performing this
work that they do not take any time from
their duties, but that they do 1t during |
their vacation. If they can benefit the
profession and the public without any in
fringement upon or violation of their duty
as officers, should there be any objection
to their receiving compensation, poorly
paid ss they are?
But it is argued that they will have to
psss on the very opinions and principles
and forms they promulgste.
This may be so. T ey would have to
pass ON matters they had formed opinions
about and delivered opinions on, even il
they did not publish them. The Supreme
court Judges do this-all judges do.
Story and Kent, Cooley and Dillon
published law books while they were on
the bench, announcing and maintaining
legal propositions and views on questions
that no doubt came up afterwards
before them for review and decision. The
United States district and circuit judges
very frequently edit and publish their own