Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1894-10-02

In January next and every six years
thereafter there will be elected
Chief Justice ofthe Supreme Court,
and he viii have the power to COM
plete the court by selecting any two
OF the District Judges again, of
course, emitting the Judge who tried
the case. This is practically a one
man power. Should question come
before the Supreme Court in which
it's Chief Justice had a strong desire
to have the law settled as he might
wish he would have only to ascertain
il there was one District Judge who
then thought or 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 right: There
would be three judges passing on the
question and at least two concurring
Uor 1t takes but majority of the
three to render a decision,) while the
Chief Justice would all the time dom
mate and control the whole situation.
No one man jsRoNId haze such po,v-
Err. A cunning, designing and intri-
guing man should certainly not have
it! and a man of natural refined and
sensitive nature and with a mind and
hearthonesta and tfue would not even
design to De placed in sudh 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 the poyer, a one
man poacer and he could divide his
responsibilities with the two selected
District Judges.
The third proposition that it makes
clog rolling court" is thus shown:
A 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 at the trial and afterward be him.
self selected to act with the Chief
Justice in the Supreme Court. A
District Judge selected by the. Chief
Justice to sit in the Supreme Court
might esteem his selection therefore
an honor and he might have feeling
of gratitude therefore or an apprecia-
ton thereof that might tend to make
him have feeling that he would pre-
fer to be in accord with the apprecia.
tive Chief Justice on the question Be-
fore the Court, and there might arse
in his mind visions Of future select
tons and opportunities to sit as Su-
preme Judge.
So much for selector and selectee,
the selecting Chief Justice and the &C.
lected District Judges.
To-day Judge A sustains or re-
verses Judge B. tomorrow Judge B.
might have the feeling accordingly to
sustain or reverse Judge A-chang-
ing the scriptural Injunction to "Do-
ing as have been done by"--to the
great evil and injury to the itigants
before the courC. This is what is call
ed in other jurisdictions where it has
been tried "log rolling court. A
very able lawyer not living in Nevada
recently said, @For Gods sake don t
let them make yours a log rolling
court. We have tried that and know
what it means" In conclusion when
a man is driven to the 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 / will not
sue?
Is it right that any man Chief Jus.
tice though he be should say to him
after he had brought suit in the trial