Jasper County Democrat, Volume 12, Number 83, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 January 1910 — NOT LIKELY TO INSPIRE CONFIDENCE. [ARTICLE]

NOT LIKELY TO INSPIRE CONFIDENCE.

The action of the supreme court i Tuesday in reversing itself on the ! gravel road law is not likely to in-' spire confidence in the wisdom or ! Intergrlty of that tribunal, and the Indianapolis News well says of the 1 decision: * By a vote of 2 to 2 the supreme Court yesterday decided that the gravel road law is constitutional, j Last November the court held thui the law was unconstitutional. A petition for rehearing was granted, i and on further consideration the ■court reversed itseCf. and thus within two months we get two decisions which are utterly inconsistent with each other. And on the final decision the court Is as nearly equally divided as it could be. It seems to us that this is a most unfortunate result. The law may be constitutional or not—apparently either position can be sustained by weighty arguments. It is com-tltutional only because three judges out of five say so, and say so after having only a few weeks ago said the other thing. Possibly this is one of those casus in which the court felt obliged to find a way to sustain the law, a case something like that presented by the litigation involving our relation to the Phillipines. When a status quo has been created, and the political branch of the government has been committed irrevocably to a certain line of action, the courts will go far in their effort to make the law fit the case. Some such consideration was Involved in thia case. Much work had been done and more planned on the theory that the taw was valid, bonds had been Issued, and many property rights were at stake. It may be

admitted, therefore, that the court should have given some weight to these matters. But really it oug.u to have thought of them in November, when the first decision was made. It is, of course, manly to confess an error and to seek to correct it. But courts should not, it they can help It, allow themselves to be put in the position of having to over-rule themselves on Impo,tant matters within two months. The decision of a court is not a personal thing. An error committed by a oourt is much more serious than one committed by an individual. And courts can not make many errors without greatly weakening the confidence of the people in them, and in the law —which is far worse. As to the merits of the decision it is not necessary to speak. The law as written, involved a manifest absurdity, and it was necessary to construe it. One construction would make it constitutional, and the other unconstitutional. Broadly speaking, when both constructions are possible, courts are bound to adopt that one that will uphold the law. But ,he unfortunate thing is, not so much that the decision is what it is, as that it was not made on the original hearing. We think that the suinal hearing. We thing that the supreme court —and we mean to speak with the utmost respect—should show more care in its decisions than it seems to have shown in this case. Such a sudden reversal of a ruling which we must assume to have been well considered can hardly help impairing the confidence of the people in the court. What is moie serious, it will have the effect of making men wonder whether there is anything certain and fixed in the law. As the law is our rule of action, it is a dangerous thing to weaken the confidence of the peopie in it. People will be likely to feel that the gravel road law is constitutional, not because there is any sb’dd moral support behind it, but simply because three out of five judge® have held It to be constitutional, after formerly having held it. unconstitutional. A law so sanctioned is a good deal discredited. One can not but wpnder what would be the decision of the court on a third hearing, if one could be had.