Ka Nupepa Elele, Volume XII, Number 29, 28 February 1891 — SUPREME COURT. [ARTICLE]

SUPREME COURT.

As a rule, we do not ofFer our vfews or opinion on decisions or opinibns ren<lered by tlie Supreme Court, "vre have neitlier the legal knoMledge or training to justifv iih i-n off?ring ouf views to the public. We ean see mueh harm especially by ar onymous wrifers in tlie publīc presf: writing for or against deeisions of coart, there ar© many in tbis country a? well as in other countries who beliove what is puWished in the!ii paper are facts, for th«se reasons tho pross .<hould be guarded when they b«gin to criticise the opinione or decisions of the !Supreme Court, as S4ich decisions must be 6ustained, or we have no govqrnm«nt. * ; There has l>een cases when the, raling of one Judge was subject to cOTnnient and appeal, there may havo been charges made to jm-Drs by a weak jadge, perhaps under feav of popularity, but they have been few ( we believe the opiaions and tīeeisions of our courts will compare favorably witU th»t of anv »>ther country, and it must not be forgotten thftt an opinion ia not a d«cisiot>, still it raay be aciepted as sueh when a e: jority of the Judges agree. The opinion of tlie .Tudgt» reudered a fe.w days ago iii rēgai\l to ''ie statns of the lft£e Minietry, seem*- to hav<» been weH teoeived by tlie generally. ami we hare no d.>ubt but that it was legally ajnl c >nso<*e3i{| ously con?«idered, and wil' '>o a } i< - oedent for the future, but Lope inay uever b« needed