Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-12-10
THE SUPREME COURT.


Comment on Its Decision in the Jessup
Case.
The following editorial, which appeared
in the San Francisco Post on Saturday
evening last, is commendable and reflects
the opinion of thoughtful people who have
an appreciation of the Importance of the
judicial system:
The decision of the Supreme Court in
the Jessup case has been the subject of
much improper comment. The fact that
the Court first affirmed the Judgment of
the Court below and upon rehearing
changed lis opinion, seems to be the only
gtCund upon which thsse criticisms are
based. Il would be unfair to censure a
Judge merely because he had changed his
o9iuiou upon reargument of case. The
law is not an exact science. The expert
enced lawyer knows the difficulties which
surround an application Of rules of law to
the facts of a given case, and different
minds equally honest may make q differ
ent application.
The laws of the State provide that in the
inferior Courts motions for a new trial may
be made, aud in the Supreme Court petit
tons for rehearing may be presented.
These provisions find place in the jurispru
| depce of most every country, and have for
| their object the attainment Of justice.
They offer 10 the losing party on the one
hand an opportunity in the first instance
to criticise the Judgment of the Court be-
| low, and on the other hand they give the
| Judge al opportunity. after such criticism,
| to review his opinion.
So long as the case is open it is the duty
of the Judge, from which he must not
shrink under any Circumstance, to aid
| iastice in accordance with the rules of law
as he nav see it a. the last moment, not
witbslsrding what may have been his pre-.
conceived views.
And the fact hat, acting under sense
| ef Justice. he changes his opinion, is TO be
commended instead of being made the basis
| of charge of either ilcompetency or corrup-
ton Justice, as administered by human tri-
bunals, can never beexact. 0ne Sc: ofJudges
may decide case one way, and another
set of equal intelligence and with equally
honorable purpose may determine the
| same case another way. The Jessup case
is good Illustration of the truth Of this
fact Judges of marked ability and of unim-
peachahle integrity stand upon the record
in direct opposition to each other.
The press has the right to criiisise public
officers. but in the case Of judicial officers
criticism should not BE made without good
4 iouIudIlOQ-uut uDt4l dttSi Tic i1ibSl uid-
ture consideration, for otherwise grave in.
iury might be done, not only to the officer
! criticized, bat to the administration of JUS
tice.
An officer other than judicial one, when
criticised has al opportunity of replying
10 the criticism if be chooses TO. Bot tt
all inteu,s and purposes, BIZ long prsctics
and usage, the mouth of the judicial officsl
is closed, and he must bear in silence IS
PERSONS upon his motives. however un'
founded they may be. or from whatesei
motives they may arise.
Most eff the criticisms referred to wer,
made before the public, and probably De
tore the authors Of the criticisms knew whs
The opinion in tbs Jessup case was. Il wa
! only Published las. Wednesday, and an IN