The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1906-07-18
parts outweighed the better, while,


were being. followed, it might pass; because all
those in favor of it would for it, while those
honestly liking part but not ALL would be COM
PEELED to say they sustained the measure in part
and their votes then being counted as for the
whole measure, (though not really so) the bill
might pass.
CD This amounts to securing a majority by
adding to those who favor all of a measure the
number who be found to sustain any part of
1t; although if the of the body were taken
on the different parts, it might be that not sim
gle part of it would be acceptable to the BODY
Nothing can be more absurd or dangerous than
this.
8. Here it may be objected that the above ar
gument might be sound in reference to the pas,
sage OF administrative measures, but that COM
plants and appeals concerned with the dis
pensatlon OF justice, and that it might well be
right to permit a different method. In other
words, IT some one comes seeking Justice, and he
can convince some that he did not obtain it on
this point; others, on that point; still others,
another point; and in the end can convince ma
jority that he did not obtain justice even though
they did not all agree to the precise point of
injustice, he should have his case either reversed
retrial.
Again, this looks clear at first sight, but grows
befogged on further consideration. We must here
carefully note the two effects of a vote on COM
plant or appeal suggested above: I. Its effect
on the individual g. Its Interpretation of law
Taking up the first, we observe:
a. This method clearly best the inter
all who favor any part of his case.
b. This might SEEM on first glance to be in
the interests OF mercy and as such, to be in har-
mony with that generally accepted and probably
sound legal principle of modern jurisprudence
that 1t is better for 90 guilty to go free than for
innocent to be punished This however
brings in wholly different ISSUE entirely out
side our present discussion, and therefore pass
it by.
But even though we might wish to lean to the
&c not t all Gle II
be either mercfu wise to give the case to
the complainant by this confused method of
voting.
1. We showed above that this method may seem
to get majority for a complainant, by counting
everybody who sustained any part of his COM
plant, when, each proposition in detail the
court might be against him. But it is not likely
that any method of voting, so essentially unfair
and absurd and SO liable to register the court as
tor proposition when it might be against every
part and detail of it, can ever subserve the ends
OF either justice or mercy to anybody concerned
2 We naturally connect mercy" with the in
dvidual as against the State the Church, or the
large body trying him. This may not be sound
but if it were, it is not certain that this method
would secure mercy for the individual for it might
Just as often happen that the complainant would
be the lower court Indeed, this is very often the
case. And this method gives the court precisely
the same advantage, when complainant, as it gives
the individual
g. 1t is difficult to that any method essen
TALLY unfair, always giving the advantage to the
complainant as against the defendant, can be wise
to adopt. Certainly, the fair method, should be
our settled rule. Certainly, we should decide
complaints and appeals, other measures either
by strict vote the measure as whole ex-
Guiding these votes "in part" by true and
proper vote seriatim. This latter is probably
much the wiser. For
4. When complaint contains a number of
specifications, of very different force (and nearly
all complaints do this,) the finding of the Higher
Court might very easily be very greatly modified