Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1894-10-07
THE counr

Court, that is to be ut the coming
election voted on that is to amend
Section2 9. Art. vi is a dangerous
matter. To said proposed amendment
the % are three mo, It serious objections
as follows:
First-It makes practically n. one
man power.
Second-It gives to the one mun
having practically all the power Il
divided responsibility.
Third-It makes what is elsewhere
called a LOG rolling court
Briefly stated the effect Of tho pro-
posed amendment is this: il adopted
there viii be after January LIST 1875
but tiroJ ustices ofthe Supreme Court:
md one Of them the Chief Justice will
have the power to complete the Court
| by selecting any II OF the four
District Judges except the one who
tried the ease under review. Two
years from January LIST. 1895 there
will be but one Justice ofthe Supreme
! Court called Chief Justice and he will
have the power to complete the court
by selecting any tiro of the four Dis
trict JUICES. of course emitting the
Judge who tried the case. 4. the
election proceeding the expiration Of
the four yearsfrom the first Monday
in January next and every six years
thereafter there will be elected Il
Chief Justice ofthe Supreme Court.
and he will have the power to cc.n-
plete the court by selecting any two
Of the District Judges again. of
course, emitting the Judge who tried
the case. This is practically n one
man power. Should 4 question come
before the Supreme Court in which
its Chief Justice had a strong desire
to have the law settled rs he might
wish he would have only to ascertain
il there was one District Judge who
then thought OF might thereafter be
induced to think as the Chief Justice
thought and all would be accomplish
ed. And when the decisions and
opinions went forth to the world all
would look fair and night. There
would be three judges passing on the
question and at least two concurring
Nor IL takes but a majority OF the
three to render decision.) while the
Chief Justice would all the time dom
mate and control the whole situation.
No one ma should hare such DOtr-
err. y cunning, designing and intri
guing man should certainly not have
it! and a man OF a natural refined and
sensitive nature and wi h a min | and
heart honest and true would not even
de sign to be placed in such a position
where he could by possibility be
charged with such practice. The
foregoing demonstrates the first and
second of the above propositions. that
is to say, the Chief Justice would
have practically all heporer, a one
MAJ porer and he could divide his
responsibilities with the two selected
District Judges.
The third proposition that it makes
n log rolling court" is thus shown:
\ District Judge who desired to have
the law settled in a certain way on
any question in his court could call
in some other District Judge to pre-
side ut the trial and afterward he him
self selected to act with the Chief
Justice in the Supreme Court. 4
District Judge selected by the Chief
Justice to sit i'll the Supreme Court
might esteem his selection therefore
m honor and he might have a feeling
OF gratitude therefore OF an a~pprecia-
ton thereof that might tend to make
him have a feeling that he would pre-.
fer to be in accord with the apprecia,
tive Chief Justice on the question lie.
fore the Court, and there might arise
in his mind visions OF future selec
tons md opportunities to sit rs Su.
preme Judge.
So much for s~elector and selectce,
the selecting Chief Justice and the Sc.
lected District Judges.
To-day Judge A s~ustains or re.
verses Judge b: tomorrow Judge b.
might have the feeling accordingly to
sustain or c Judge A-chang.
ing the scriptural injunction to $40.
ing rs l have been done by"--to the
great evil and injury to the litigants
before the court. This is what is call.
ed in other jurisdictions where it has
been tried n "log rolling court. 8
very able lawyer not living in Nevada
recently said, "For Goi's sake don't
let them make yours II ;g; rolling
court. We haze tticd that and know
what IL means In conclusion when
n man 10 driven - ;fre hard necessity
Of having to sue his fellow man. should
he not have the rightto say my case
will finally come before Judges a B
and G therefore | will sue or I will not
sue?
Is it right that any man Chief Jus.
tice thou IN he be should say to him
after ne hal brought suit in the trial
court and his case was finally lodged
on appeal in tho Supreme Court-.he
final and trying time OF his caso-aI
vii sc!c:t n majority OF the Judges
to determine your case" This pro