The Indianapolis times., 1926-11-04
JUSTICE BY THE POUND
BY N. ID. Cochran

Now we ave another decision of the august Su-
preme Court of the United States in which the
finally determined by a majority vote. Justices Holmes
and Brandeis being the minority is frequently the
This time they joined by Justice McReynolds,
who most Of the time is lined with the reactionary
majority
The merits of this particular decision not in
volved in this study of the Supreme Court The right
and wrong of Supreme Court decisions sis something
quite beyond the understanding Of us common folks
What Interested in just is a sort of
chemical analysis of law. BY law do not mean JUS
tice they not necessarily members of the
family. So it doesn't affect this argument whether
Chief Justice Taft Justice Holmes is right
whether the President arbitrarily fire certain Off
cials with or without the consent OF the Senate
The Supreme Court decisions determined by
count of If five judicial red and four
white the red wins That the law is red
cordng to the great American Constitution, if in
fact it happens to be black.
1t may well be that students Of the Constitution
would have respect for the minority opinion Of
Justices Holmes and Brahdes than for the joint opinion
of Chief Justice Taft and Associate Justices Butler,
Stone, Sanford, Xandevanter and Sutherland Or even
If Justice Reynolds had lined up with them for In gen.
eral he is in the when he sits with Justices
Holmes and Prandeis.
But that would be based on the qualitative theory
Of justice and court of last determines the
law the quantitative theory-the of
SO long law is determined the quantitative
theory ,or the count of noses, it would that an
efficiency expert might suggest important changes in
method which would not only lot of time. but
whole lot Of wear and tear on the mentality Of the
judges
We hear from time to time that judges in trying
get what the law is weigh the authorities. Even
a layInan who has listened argument by lawyers
has heard authorities quoted clear back to the time
when the mind Of man runneth not to the contrary.
Moreover he has the separate piles Of books on
the tables of the. contendng lawyers.
Why not have scales, i'm the courtroom and pile the
books loaded the guards with authorities the two
sides the scales and let the indicator determine which
wins?
If, too many books dragged in for ordinary
scales compensatng hay scales could be installed in
the and justice determined by weigh
of authorities clerk could manipulate the scales,
and the judges could take while weigh
ing going ON
might weigh the judges determine
what the Constitution meant by adding up the weight
of the jlrges side and comparing 1t with the
Joint weight of the judges the other There wouldn't
be much difference in this method than that of
ing
OF the chief justice would outweigh any of
his associates, but If there happened to be enough
public interest long enough in advance could atten
up of the other justices, Anyhow the result
would be the same, there Holmes
Brandes theory Of the Constitution and justice win
ming out through their avoirdupois since practically
advance which side of the scales they will be found
upon.
So long the quantitative theory Of justice stays
with us we might well get Supreme Court deci
sions by weight as by nose. counting.
When we get to weighing mind instead of matter
the nose counting rule will not prevail