Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/609

 The Progress of the Law

569

given for its judgment, taken down in short notes‘ by persons present at the determination. There was a very interesting discus sion of this subject of written opinions of judges by Justice Field, then Chief

necessity of giving an opinion upon pro nouncing judgment, and if one shall be given whether it shall be oral or in writ ing. In exercising that discretion, the authority‘ of the court is absolute, and

Justice of the Supreme Court of Califor

tent to judge it.

nia and afterwards of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Houston v. Wil liams, 13 Calif. 24, in 1859, where the Court, citing these remarks of Lord Coke, held invalid a statute of California requir ing the Supreme Court to give the reasons of its decisions in writing. It was said that the practice of writing opinions was of

modern origin, and that the legislature could no more lawfully require the Court to give the reasons of its judgment than the Court could require the legislature to give the reasons of its enactments.

the legislative department is incompe This opinion has been cited approv ingly by the Supreme Court of Colorado (see Bullet v. McGerr, 14 C01. 577); and

the same ruling has been made by the Supreme Court of Arkansas (Vaughn v. Hart, 49 Ark. 160). The experience of those of you who

have served in the appellate courts, will conﬁrm the opinions that it is not the decision of cases, but thelabor of making up the statement of the complicated and voluminous records, which involves the great labor of the court and the conse

quent congestion and delay in clearing

The reports, he said, were full of adjudged cases in which opinions were never delivered. The facts are stated by the reporter and the points arising thereon, and are followed by the judgment ren dered thereon. The practice of giving

Many cases are in effect decided by the judges upon the oral argument. In the English Court of Appeals such cases are decided in oral opinions by the judges

reasons for judgment, said the Court,

soon after the argument.

had grown into use in modern times. Formerly the reasons, if any, were given

orally by the judges and taken down by the reporters.

The opinion of Justice Field in this case is worthy of very careful study by the members of the bar, as well as by the judges of our appellate courts. He said that all right minded judges in im

portant cases, when the pressure of their business will permit, will give such opin ions; but it was not every case that would justify the expenditure of time to

the dockets of our appellate courts.

Notwithstanding all this, it is well known that in many of our states are statutes, and in some of them consti tutions requiring written opinions by the judges. in my own state not only is there such a constitutional requirement as to the appellate courts but there is also a statutory provision requiring the

judges of the courts to make statements of the cases in their opinions so that

they may be understood without refer ence to the records. When we connect with these requirements the further very

write an opinion. Many cases involve no new principle, and are appealed only for delay. It could serve no purpose of pub

that the rule, that prejudice shall be pre

lic good to repeat elementary principles

sumed from error, which has been so fer

of law which have never been questioned

tile a cause of the scandalous delays in

for centuries. The Court must, there fore, exercise its own discretion as to the

the administration of American justice,

general prohibition of other than written charges to the juries, we cannot wonder

should have become so firmly established