The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1912-07-13
EDWARD NJ PUGH AND THE
SUPREME COURT.

Mr.. Edward N. Pugh IS making III
his campaign for associate lustlce
from this district. The Outlook says:
"Hon. E. N. Pugh seems to think
the present method OF deciding cases
before the supreme court OF LOUIS
lana needs only to be stated 10 DC
condemned"
With all due Difference to the Gut
look, we believe that jurists, publ
cists and all those who have made
a study of the problem are united
in condemning the present system
all agreeing that the judgment OF
one man can not possibly have the
value and weight the Judgment OF
the entire court can have. The Out
look in it's article conceded the cor
rectness of the statement which Mr..
Pugh has made in his public an
nouncement that "under the present
system the litigant obtains the
opinion of only one judge on the
law and the facts, whereas he is
absolutely entitled to the Judgment
| of all five but enGeavors to justify
| the present system on the ground
that "there is, for instance, the con-
dition of special qualifications such
as may make the judgment OF one
man Of more value than the concur
rent Judgment of enc hundred men
engaged in the same general field
Of endeavor If it were a question
Of planning the movement of a great
srmy in battle, how would the con-
ception of a Robert e. Lee weigh
against the conception of a hun
bred ordinary brigadier generals?
/ How would the opinion of a Marshall
stand against the opinion of one
hundred judges Of the federal cir
cult courts on q question of con-
stitutional law? This principle ap-
plies in every field of thought and
sndeayor.'
The illustration given by the Out
look of the judgment of the COM
mander in chief of an army being
better than that of the brigadier
generals can have no application
| here, for under our law each mem
her of the supreme court, whether
/ Justice or chief justice, has no
greater authority than the other,
land all five constitute the court,
not one individual whereas in the
| illustration given It is the commander
who is ia authority and directs the
work to be done, and not the sub.
lordinate brigadier generals. The
complete answer, however, to the
position taken by the Outlook is tc
be found in the constitutional man
date which provides that mo judg
ment shall be rendered by the SUI
| preme court without the concurrence
of at least three Justices" The man
date of the constitution requires no
the passive acquiescence of the othe1
| judges, but the exercise and asser
| tjon by each of the concurring judges
Of his independent Judgment.
A learned writer, condemning tht
method Of courts in announcing opin
ions prepared by one judge and pro
: mulgated as the opinion Of the court
based upon the passive concurrence
| Of his associates, said:
"The reason why the final deter
mination of questions of law is lef
to a court of several judges, con
stituted for the purpose, rather thai
TO several independent courts Of one
judge each, is that We may gai1
something more than the individual
opinions of several minds qualified
and opposed to each other; it is tx
get the opinion of a court; a com
posite opinion which shall evolve tn
doctrines of the law in conference
1 NAiA PAoAhhkG0SC Li1O4I 81 AStl Sbo alASi
of judgment gives certainty and prec
sion, and no further
In the United States suprem
Court and in many of the supreme
courts o. the states, the record il
each case is thoroughly examined b,
all of the judges, thus resulting il
having all decisions rendered tn
decision Of the court and not th
opinion of one individual membe
thereof on the facts and the law.
John NJ. Shirley, a publicist an
lawyer of great distinction, in com
J menting upon the zone judge opir
, ion" Of appellate courts has said:
\ Opinions thus prepared by sir
: gle judge and concurred in by his as
{ sociates are difficult to overcom
| even upon rehearing. and the view
expressed are hard to eradicate eve
by subsequent importing Of the truth
| a no ri I'D