Who shows more logic and wisdom in this argument, Jim or Huck? Explain why.

However, when Huck mentions King Solomon, Jim starts telling him that Solomon was one of the most foolish men who ever lived. Jim comments that any man who had as many wives as Solomon would go crazy, and that the notion of chopping a child in half in order to figure out which woman is the rightful mother is plain stupid. Jim remarks that the issue was about a whole child, not a half a child, and Solomon would have shown more respect for children if he had not had so many. Huck tries to explain the moral lesson Solomon was trying to teach, but Jim hears none of it. One has to hand it to Jim here, the story, from his view, is kind of silly. What if neither woman stopped Solomon? Would he have still cut the child in half? Jim thinks there were better ways for Solomon to prove his point.