Kansas City journal., 1898-02-20
OPINIONS OF FINAL COURTS.
ATTORNEY wOLLMAN SAYS THEY
SHOULD BE UNANIMOUS.
In an Address Which Has Attracted
,Considerable Attention He OPP
poses Dissenting Opinions by
Courts of Last Resort.

The last issue Of the Albany Law Jour-
nal. the leading legal publication OF the
country. contains an address by Attorney
Henry Wollman, of this city. on Dissent
ing Opinions by Courts of the Last Re-
sort" The address has aroused great in
terest among lawyers throughout the coun-
try:
"There never should be dissenting opin-
ion," said Mr.. Wollman. 'in case decided
by a court of last resort. No judge, lawyer
or layman should be permitted to weaken
the force of the courts decision, which all
must accept as an unappealable tinality.
The decision should be that of the court,
and not of tho judges as individuals. The
judges should get together and render
decision settling tho points in controversy.
The decision rendered should not reflect
the opinion Of this Judge OF that judge but
..If I were a candidate for position,
what possible good could 1t do to tell me.
You are elected but three OF the ene memGess na}ess
to tell me that could have it, but two OF
the discount commitee votea a., asa,inss soiEancvs es
In effect the courts say TO suitot. we
decide for you, but two or three judges
still think you are wrong.
IF a dissenting opinion Is well written II
impresses not only the particular Et1gant,
but all who read it. with the idea tnat m
Justice has been done by the courts; feel.
ing of dissatisfaction arises. feehns OF
great wrong is cast abroad. The court
has been weakened in popular esteem, for
in the opinion of the reader of the dis
senting opinion 1t has lent itself to In
Justice and inflicted wrong.
"A dissenting opinion Is 10 some extent
an appeal by the minority-from the de.
cision of the majortty-to the people. What
they can't change it; right or wrong. they
must respect and obey 1t. Why shake the
faith of the people in the wisdom and in
fallibility OF the judiciary. Upon the re-
pends the very life of the republic.
IF nothing else is accomplished. one
good result at least would surely follow the
abolition of dissenting opinions-the opin-
ion of the court would be shorter and more
concise, stating in plain English the points
decided, and succinctly the reasons there
for. for all the judges being responsible
for it, would see see that it was not filled
with obscure Illustrations and beclouded
with alleged reasons OF doubtful logical
force. If we had shorter opinions the
judges would have time to write better
ones.
Nothing of any benefit to the public can
be gained by dissenting opinion.
Dissenting opinions may be as pleasant
to the minority judge as it is for a boy to
make faces at a bigger boy across the
street. whom he can't whip. They give
judge an opportunity. of exhibiting his in
does that do? What cares the public for
the judges individual views. except in SO
far as. by reason of his position. they as
sumo the force of law? The only concern
of the public is with the decision Of the
court, SO that they may know what it is,
and know how to govern themselves.
1.-THE curtain should not be raised to pre-
sent the disagreeable picture Of family dis
cord and want of harmony.
1T is a maxim of law that 1t Is to the
interest of the public that there should be
an end to litigation. 1t certainly is to the
interest Of the public that when question
is settled by the highest tribunal, 1t should
remain settled for all time. The result of
a dissenting opinion is simply to open up
for future discussion, pickering and Etf-
finally settled by that tribunal. Somebody
must settle the question; 1t must be set
tied somewhere; that tribunal has been Sc
once settles It, it should remain settled
forever"