The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1894-03-21
criticising the Judiciary.
BY GEO. E. PRINCE, ESQ.

We were much surprised, and not a
little grieved, to fud IN the Christian
Aduocote (Nashville) Of February 1st the
following statement:
1T seems evident to one at distance
that the Duval Club and Judge Call had
en understanding with each other all
along. The next Legislature will pass
an Act that not even a superserviceable
Judge can misinterpret." This was said
in reference to Judge Calls decision,
ssThat there is no statute in Florida pro-
hibiting glove contests" Now We should
like very wueh to know what the editors
, Of the Adyocate know OF Florida's laws.
How can either of them say that Judge
Call misinterpreted the statutes of Flor
ida? How is it evident 70 one st distance
that there was an understanding ali along
between the Duval Club and Judge Call?
What evidence have the editors of the
Advocate that Mr.. Call is superservice-
able Judge, as they plainly intimate?
these are very grave and serious charges
and should not have been made unless
they can be clearly sustained by unques.
toned proof. Can it be possible that
these very heavy charges are brought by
Christian gentlemen against the character
and official conduct of onessof the Judges
OF a great State on mere assumptions?
Can it be possible that these gentlemen
have rashly published to the world q
charge which, if true, should cause the
Judge's:impeachment, based upon nobet-
ter ground for belief than that this Judge
sustained the contention OF the Duval
Club? Is this their only reason for de-
olaring that there was an understanding
between the Judge and the club? For
their sakes, We sincerely hope not 1t
would be more honorable and Christian
like to assume that Judge Call did his
duty and honestly construed the law IN
accordance with his best Judgment after
mature deiberation. Let it.be remem-
bered that it was his duty to declare the
law as it is and not as he might possibly
think it ought to be. With the moral ques-
ton he had and could have nothing to do.
It is the duty of every Judge to declare
-"Itn zes Sc,ipta est without regard to
policy Of laws and to enact in proper way
and from such laws as will best protect
society and subserye public morals. Ii
there was no statute in Florida prohibiting
glove contests, the fault lies with the Leg
islature rather that with the Judge. But
it is not our purpose to defend either
Judge Call or his decision, as We are equal
ly strangers to him and the Florida stat
utes; but we insist that, as we know COM
paratively nothing of either, we must
assume that his decision was righteous.
Righteous because made from right
motives by one thoroughly competent by
reasons of his familiarity with Florlda's
laws. His competency and fitness we may
and must assume, or else We seriously re-
fleet on the wisdom and discretion of bis
State. Do not good sense and good morals
both require this Of US? The Judge and
his decision, howevery, do not greatly
concern us; but what does concern Us
much is the growing habit in the South to
rush into print with hippant criticisms OF
judicial cpioions. The correctness of
legal decisions are not only questioned but
are denied by men who have never made
a study of the law and are for that reason
wholly incompetent to form correct
Judgment of the points at issue. The
fact that the learned Judge has made the
study of the law his life work. has been
elevated to his position because OF his fit
mes. for the place, and makes his decision
after hearing argument from men who are
not only skilled in the Interpretation OF
law, but who have made special study of
the case in hand, is never once allowed
any weight with the jay-hawkers who are
very wise in their own concelt. This Is
not all. Too often are the motives of
judges impugned and their characters
recklessly aspersed for no better reason
than that decisions we're counter to pop
ular whim or prejudice. This arraign-
ment of the judiciary is often made by
those who are high in Church and State
with recklessness that is truly lamenta-
bic. To thoughtful man this is one OF
the most portentous signs Of the times
one pregnant with future evil.
This foolish criticism Of the judges can
have but one effect, and that is to bring
the administration of law into disrepute
with the masses. Contempt for the ad-
ministration of law soon leads to con-
tempt of law. Contempt of law, IN its
turn, leads to lawlessness and anarchy,
and those vino by unadvised and hippant
criticism have contributed to the loss OF
respect on the part Of the masses
for the Judiciary are largely and directly
responsible for the evils that are sure to
follow. The higher the position of the
critic in Church or State the more bane-
full is bis criticism It may be, and is gen
orally the case, that the critic knows
nothing of the law and is therefore in
competent to pass Judgment on Judicial
question, but the masses never stop to
consider this fact, provided he occupy a
high position, and speaks with assurance.
In this State especially We have recently
had more than enough of this foolish crit
icism, and have noted with sorrow its
baneful effect. It is bad enough when
it is, as here, thevaporings of disappointed
demagogues, but it is infinitely worse
when it comes from the pen of the editor
of strong religious paper. The conse-
quercGs OF such unreasonable criticism
may hacnr,a rar1ch H0rsA than the cOnse-