New-York tribune., 1919-12-28
By Theodore Nj. Knappcn


preme Courts decision in
the wartime prohibition and South
ern Pacific Railroad lands cases,
bat nobody connected with the
court believes it,
Considering its precautions. such
that it Is not to be admitted
there is any chance for advance in
formation of the nature Of de-
cisions to get out, the attitude Of
the court is that while the slightest
reflection on the integrity Of the
court and its attaches must be in
vestieated in order to preserve It's
spotless honor, it is practically GER
tain that the latest leak scandal is
only one more case of some of the
numerous 'insiders" Of Washing
ton trying to sell something they
haven't got.
Indeed, somebody may have
sold" something and somebody
else may have bought a brick that
turned out to be gold, though the
vendor may we'll have known that
there was only a so per cent chance
that he was selling a genuine az
ticle-
In the Southern Pacific case It
was simply a question of whether
the decision would or would not re-
store certain valuable lands to the
railway company. Anybody inter
ested in Southern Pacific would
know that if the lands were re-
turned to the company it would be
wealthier and its stock more val
liable. Wall Street is always guilt
ble on anything that is labeled "in-
formation" for it has a certain
value in the Street, whether true or
false, as dope for spectators, if
for no other reason. Anybody with
a mysterious manner and q we'll
chosen bunch of f-recommenda-
lions in regard to the profundity of
fis interiorness in Washington af-
fairs should have been able to make
good money on the Southern Pa
cifc decision by clipping" it
either way. He might not, if his
confidential information" turned
out to have been poor guess, have
found the same client for his next
offering Of Authoritative informal
ton" but he undoubtedly would
lind somebody else.
An Even Chance
Similarly with the Supreme
Courts recent decision in the war
time prohibition case. Either the
court would decide that it was valid
or it would decide that it was not.
Advance information would be valu-
able, and also what professed to be
advance information. The fact
that some one may have professed
TO be in guilty communication with
some employee Of the court and to
have asserted that by means of that
relation he knew what the decision
was would prove nothing. Any one
trying to sell merchandise of that
Fort would be prompted to intimate
something as to its authenticity as
means Of enhancing the value Of
his wares.
1t is not inconceivable that any
Industrious, shrewd and resourceful
person armed with a corruption fund
who should make study of the way
Supreme Court decisions and opln-
IONS are made and handled would
ind some weak point in the routine
where by theft or bribery he might
get access to the coveted document
we'll in advance Of the delivery of
Sbs opinion in court. Nevertheless,
Che court takes such care to protect
itself and has such confidence in all
who come in contact with decisions
from the moment they begin to
evolve In the notes Of a justice until
they are handed down in open court
that the chance Of anything careless
~ or corruptly leaking is considered
about as good as that one Of the
justices could be bought. Inasmuch
as there has never been any reflec-
ton on the personal integrity of
any justice of the Supreme Court
from it's founding down to the pres
ent time, there Is from this point Of
view no possibility Of decision sec
ing the daylight Of public knowledge
before the appointed time.
1t Is the custom Of the justices
10 discuss cases behind the closed
doors of the consultation room
every Saturday. When this discus
sion has arrived at a decision In
any case, the Chief Justice desig-
mates one of the associates to write
the decision and the opinion in the
case. At this stage, of course, no.
BODY but the court itself knows what