New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-07-09
AN ASTOUNDING DISCOVERY
SUPREME COURT REPORTS WHICH MISLEAD.
HUNDREDS OF DECISIONS oMITTED-THousANDs
OF CHANGES or THE ORIGINAL RECORDS
WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY RESTS.
fBY IaLsGnAFu TO TIE rRIDUvE.I

WASHINGTON, July "a Dill Is TcHtlliS III NOH-
grcss for the purchase by the Government of set
of the United States Supreme Court reports to be
kept at any place where a term of United States
| District and Circuit Court is held. There are | IA
such places not now supplied. The bill was intro
duced in the House. it is understood, ut the IN
stance of Banks IL Bro, of Albany, who are the
publishers Of what is known as the official cdi-
tion,7 and as it passed the House il provided that
the cost Of each set should be 81 60 making total
of slS240 The bill carried an appropriation OF
$4,000 The regular price per volume, accord
ing to law. is SO, and the present number OF vol
umos in a set is % To supply the IA places,
therefore, with the volumes already published at
that price would involve n total expenditure OF
S2S 800 and it is understood that efforts are max
ing to have the bill so amended in the Senate as
to apl rOpratc that amount and provide for the
purchase of volumes hereafter published. That
the main and ostensible object of the bill is neces
sary and praiseworthy one appears to be self
evident but some serious objections are raised
against the official edition." which is declared to
be not only inaccurate in many particulars but IN
complete as well.
1t appears that there is another Richmond in
The feld1 in the shape Of what is known AS the
lawyers edition." published at Rochester, which
is certified to be correct and complete transcript
Of the records Of the Court In this edition IT ap-
pears that the certificate Of the Clerk of the Su-
prcmc Court is appended to each opinion. On the
| other hand. il is claimed that in the thirty nine
volumes of Wallace and Ott) Of the official edit on
the variations from the record of the Court affect
more than one thousand of. the opinions, and may
be counted by thousands. In hundreds of cases
the syllabi prepared by the judges have been
changed almost beyond recognition, and the re-
porter has assumed credit for the authorship Of
the same in many thousand instances the state
mcnt of the case" prepared by the Judge has been
edited and amended" and in some eases ig-
norcd. by the reporter, who. apparently has as
sumcd the authorship of the same, and in other
thousands of cases the language of the opinion
itself varies from that used by the Judge or the
Court as shown by the Court records.
HOW JUDICIAL OPINIONS HAVE BEEN CHANGED.
OF course many, probably large majority of
these variations immatcral, and yet it Is as
| serted that they are unauthorized and that there
were lively times in the Court when some of the
changes were for the first time brought to their
notice. not long ago. They were not slow to real
ize the fact. Of which members of the legal pro-
fesson generally viii have lively appreciation,
that if court reporter may vary from the official
record of an opinion in any respect he may
do so in matters which material as
well as in those which might he
considered Of little or no consequence. lie might
err unconsciously or his Judgment might be at
fault. When Judge Of one of the highest courts
in the world writes an opinion which Is to stand
rs the Judgment of that court, he is presumed to
express his exact meaning, and any change OF his
language by a court reporter, except under the
direction, and with the approval, of the Judge,
must affect the integrity of the record.
And yet Reporter Wallace and Reporter Otto
both made such changes by the thousand. In
some cases the latter rcwrotc entire paragraphs
| in the body of opinions prepared by judges, and
delivered as the judgment of the Supreme Court
of the United States But not content with " edit
incr Amending and otherwise changing the
records of the Court. both Reporter Wallace and
Rcportcr Otto took the responsibility, in violation
of law of emitting altogether certain opinions OF
the Court.
Section 6s1 of the Revised Statutes provides
that the renortcr shall cause the decisions Of
the Supreme Court made during his Office to be
printed and published7 This statute which is
mandatory. requires that the decisions of the
Court shall be published not that part shall
10 pabl,hcd. while the rest remains unpublished
and accessible only to members Of the Washington
bar or TO LAWYERS who make journey 10 Wash
incton for the purpose of consulting them in the
preparation of their cases
LAWYERS EMBARRASSED BY IMPERFECT
REPORTS.
Members of the legal profession throughout the
country will be astoundcd to learn that from the
so-called official edition Of the Supreme Court
reports of Wallace and Otto more than 2oO
decisions of the Court have been omitted altogether
and no reference whatever made to them. lhs
fact will appear none the less significant because
nearly all Of these what are usually styled
practice decisions Every lawyer having charge
| of eases in the district and circuit courts Of the
! United States which eases are to go eventually
70 the Supreme Court on appeal knows how
necessary it is to adhere to the forms and preccdens
laid down hv the higher tribunal. and many of
them have experienced the chagrin and dlsappont-
mont Of seeing their cases dismissed on some
| tocbnicalitv of which they were ignorant, be-
! causc the reports upon which they relied were I'M
perfcct. Not long ago. 1t Is said, lawyer living
| in n distant State came 70 Washington to argue
a case in the Supreme Court. lie had PREPARED
| the case with great care and was confident OF
success lie went into court ana was dumiounded
when a motion of the opposing counsel to dismiss
it was promptly granted in accordance with "A
precedent laid down in decision Of which he
never had heard. lie was thoroughly familiar
with the decisions Of the Court as published in
the so-callcd official edition." and then for the
first time learned to his great astonishment that
the edition Of Supreme Court RcrorS in his
| library was imperfect.
II ought to De- stated here that the volumes Of
reports prepared and Published under the di-
rcction Of the present reporter OF the Supreme
! Court J. c. Bancroft Davis. are in every respect,
accurate and complete. being true transcripts Of
the official records of the Court. edited with the
greatest care and highest intelligence. lie has not
assumed IN imprOve' tho Judgment, Of the Court
! THE CHANGES DISAVOWED BY TIE COURT
From sources believed to be entirely trust
worthy it has been asc"rtainc1 that prominent
members of the Supreme Court bar well the
Court itself have been astoundcd at the revelations
already communicated to them but these form
only an insignificant proportion Of the changes and
j :. IL. I... l....,, l,l l.,o