New-York tribune., 1901-01-15
SPECULATTNG on THE DECISION.

1t is perhaps inevitable that public interest I'm
a case so important as the constitutional ques
ton now before the Supreme Court should
manifest itself in speculation concerning the
attitude of the individual members OF the court
Every supposed indication of any Justices state
of mind, revealed by questions TO counsel, is
eagerly caught up, and on the slightest Of
foundations it is assumed that he is for or
against the Governments view. This sort of
guessing is perhaps harmless enough pas
time but nobody need attach importance TO it
as serious forecast Of the result. Courts are
not accustomed 10 wearing their opinions on
their sleeves 1t is quite impossible to form
any trustworthy opinion concerning the view
which judge may take OF a case after study
ing it from the views he may express at the
hearing. Moreover questions put to eucidate
points are not even TO be ranked as expressions
of tentative views. 1t is the most natural
thing in the world for any man seeking light
on doubtful subject TO put antagonlStic ques-
tions 10 a man presenting it, to draw out In full
force his contention.
The questions asked during last weeks argu-
ments have led the spectators hastily to pro-
claim that Justices Brewer Harlan, White and
Brown are certainly against the Government.
This is rather amusing, In view of the past
opinions Of some of these Justices quoted in
Richards in his brief. Those quotations are, of
course not TO be construed as meaning any
more than they say, as committing the
writers TO acceptance of arguments founded on
their words TO a degree which would Justify sur
prise at their failure to consider q new question
from exactly the same point of view as they
before looked at some cognate subject. But
they do reveal an attitude of open mindednesS
toward the principles maintained by the Gov
ernment quite Incompatible with the assump-
ton founded on their interest in cross-question-
ing counsel that they have been hearing the
argument with views already fixed. Thus we
find the Solicitor-General pointing out the un-
reasonableness of forcing our constitutional
system of courts, grand juries and trial juries
on people accustomed TO another system of
jurisprudence, the abolition of which, by an ex
proprio vigore extension OF the Constitution
would leave them, pending the difficult process
OF organizing constitutional courts, a prey to
lawlessness He says that we should leave the
liberty of dealing with these people accustomed
TO the civil law, instead of the common law that
is the foundation of our constitutional system
| which Mr.. Justice Brown pleaded for when i'm q
recent opinion he wrote:
In the future growth of the Nation. as bereto-
fore, 1T is not impossible that Congress NAV see
fit to annex territories whose Jurisprudence Is
that or the civil law. One OF the considers tious
moving TO such annexation might be the very
fact that the territory annexed should enter
the Union with its traditions. laws and systems
or administrations unchanged. Ii would he
narrow construction of the Constitution to re
| quire them to abandon these, or to substitute
for a system which represented the growth os
generations of inhabitants a Jurisprudence with
which they had previous acquaintance or
1 sympathy
Undoubtedly State might be admitted with
the civil law. though the Federal Jurisdiction