Los Angeles herald., 1891-12-18
WHAT is THE LAWP WHO KNOWS?

WHAT is THE LAW? WHO KNOWS?
The supreme court has given us an
other illustration of the uncertainty OF
the law in its majority decision in the
elisor grand jury case. Two of the JUS
tices filed dissenting opinions which
fully maintained the legality OF Judge
Wallaces proceedings, and Chief JUS
tice Beatty differed with them in their
view OF the regularity OF the method
pursued in bringing the matter before
the supreme court. The concurrent
opinion OF four of the justices overruled
the action OF Judge Wallace altogether
in making up the grand jury through an
elisor before the panel had
been exhausted; and intimates
that an elisor .can only be appointed
when the sheriff is disqualified, or in
competent for cause, that must appear
of record. We see that clerk OF the
supreme court says that the opinion OF
the majority is concurred in by the
leading members of the bar as sound
law, but that the fact that Chief Justice
Beatty differed with them gives great
weight to the attitude assumed by
Judge Wallace on the question OF the
power of court to appoint an elisor at
any time when he deems that the ends
of Justice will be subserved by that
course.
The San Francisco Examiner advanced
aseries OF questions to Justice Beatty on
the subject, which that jurist has an
swered, ard as part of the interesting
developments in this grave controversy
we reproduce them, as follows
l. Do you hold that the grand jury,
though irregularly drawn, was legal
body2
Answer-Yes.
2. Do YOU hold that its indictments
were not yitiated by the irregularity OF
its drawing?
Answer-Yea. l hold they are not
void, and give the lower court iurisdic-
tion to proceed and try them.
5. Would the application Of the find
ings in your decision TO the case OF
person convicted on such an indictment
utCEESdIlly CduSC NOl. III llIC NNCLh Va
his appealing, to decide that the irregu-
larity in the drawing of the grand jury
made the conviction void?
Answer-It would not. But this was
not one OF the questions in the case and
had no need to be decided upon.
We here have the chief justices an
swer in the affirmative to those ques-
tions affecting the material points in the
entire controversy. He positively sus-
tains the position that the elisor jury
was a de facto jury; that all its acts
were legal, and that the indictments
found by it would not have been de-
clared void if convictions had followed.
These views of the chief justice are enti-
tied to the highest consideration. He is
seasoned jurist. His mind is by train
ing and heredity judicial mind. His
interpretations OF the law, both as q SUI
preme judge of this state and OF Nevada,
have always carried preponderating
weight with the bar and with intelligent
people of all classes. Ii an appellate
court were so constituted that its opin-
ions could be decided by the ability and
character OF the judges, instead OF by
the number of judges concurring, then
the conclusions of chief justice like
Beatty would outweigh those OF four
justices like the majority in this in
stance.
But, dropping all speculations of this
character, we ask whether this outcome
of the elisor case does not fairly illus
trate the uncertainty Of the law? The
dissenting justices quote former decis-
ions Of their own court to sustain their
views; and the fact is notorious that
the supreme court has overruled itself
time and again. There is no such thing
as stare decisiS, and under our Judicial
methods nothing is ever settled. What
is deemed the settled law Of today, may
tomorrow be reversed. There is no
stability, no fnallty. 1t is for this rea-
son that great interests and great cor
porations are constantly intriguing and
colloguing. with machine politicians
to get certain men on the supreme
bench. They want justices who will be
under obligations to them Tor their
places, and who will be partial to their
interests.
The law is exactly what the acci-
dental bench today may construe it to
be. The accidental bench of next year
will construe it otherwise If it should be
selected with view to that purpose.
The law has no terror for criminals be-
cause there is no certainty that the
Judges will give it an even and inf1exi-
BILE Interpretation and enforcement.
Eyery red handed murderer, who, under
q certain administration OF justice,
would despair of escape, is buoy ed with