The semi-weekly messenger., 1905-11-03
Friday, Noqember 5, 1905
ANOTHER ~SUPREMIST'' COURT.

Not not ago The Biblical Recorder,
we think it was, in discussing Govern
or Glenn's manner of investigating ap-
plications of criminals for executive
clemency, stated that he had establish
ed a court higher than the supremel
court which it termed the "supremest'
courts 1t seems that another court of
this kind has been established in this
state This latter, though, differs from
the other of its kind in that the gov
ernor has the right under powers, con-
ferred on him by the constitution of
the state, virtually to set aside the de-
cision of the supreme court in criminal
cases, when in his opinion he thinks it
proper to do 80, by pardoning the GRIM
inals or lessening the sentence i'm
posed upon them.
This other ''supremest' court to
which we refer has no powers and its
existence is not recognized by the con-
stitution or the laws of the state. 1T
is self-constituted and has no other
rights and powers except those of call
ing the attention of the constitutional
court Of last resort to the fact that it
has in this or that case gone contrary
to the law and the constitution in it's
decision. 1t assumes to itself a per-
lection of knowledge Of the law and
the right at any time it sees fit to say
ia n hot
in some particular case was contrary to
the law Of the state and to instruct it
as to what the law is and what it's de-
cision should have been.
This new "supremest' court general
ly takes jurisdiction in cases in which
its personnel is interested pecuniarily
or in some other way closely connected
with it's material or political welfare
and the decision of the other court has
been adverse to its interests.
The Greensboro Record a few days
ago in an editorial made allusion to-
the vigorous stand The News and OBJ
server has for some time taken in up
holding the principle Of trial by jury,
saying:
It's too bad when ones idol is shat
tered. Just smashed to smithereens.
Here is the editor of the esteemed
News and Observer Raleigh; no man
has stood up or fought harder for the
jury system in this country than Mr..
Daniels; he has lambasted Judges
right and left for taking a case away
from jury. Trial by jury shouted
Mr.. Daniels, is one of the inalienable
rights of a free people, Or words to
this effect. He says this has been his
policy and it must be true. Perhaps
he has not changed his mind yet,
though he may be shaky, for the very
first time a jury made a pass at him
they soaked him for $4,000 N the suit
of Colonel Osborn against The News
and Observer and NJ II. Leach. 1t
seems like the irony of fate, but Mr.
Daniels got it in the neck. OF course
no one knows outside of the jury, but
it is likely they thought they were do
ing him a great favor in awarding a
Judgment for only $4,000 when the
suit was for $4,000. 1t is a trite say
ing that you can never tell what a
jury is going to do. Mr.. Daniels may
have been of this opinion heretofore,
put now he knows it is true"
The News and Observer of Tuesday
quotes the above and replies to it
chiefly in an analysis and criticism
of the action of the supreme court,
pointing out wherein that court had
made mistakes in its attempt to con-
strue the law. We are glad to see,
though. that while pointing out the
defective knowledge of the law by the
members of that court and showing
where they had made mistakes in this
cisiOn of that court is the law until re-
yersed by some court other than The
News and Observers; but, still, it
makes a virtue of bowling to its deci-
sion when it says that this paper
with reverence is like the man in the
Bible who said: Though He slay me,
yet will / trust in Him."
1t must be a source of gratifica ton
to the justices of the supreme court to
learn that they are not going to be de-
posed from office 10y the "supremest"
court for having failed to understand
the law to be as the presiding officer
of the latter sees it
But this ''supremest'' court does not
fail 10 tell the supreme court in the
pianist terms that its members did
not know the law in the case, as the
following extracts from its reviewing
opinion show:
'tAs a matter of fact, while the ver-
dict of that jury was SO excessive as
to outrage the sense of justice all over
the state, the chief error was made
by the supreme court"
The supreme court only two of the
present judges tting on the case err
red in constituting ETC., etc.
In our humble opinion the supreme
court was wrong etc., etc.
The verdict of the jury was a heavy
lick but the 6ecis on of the supreme
court WAS the solar nlexIS 50