Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1830-12-25

and ,I,e Judge decided ii III his absence. Mr.. /,
was not present when the decision was made; but
JUDGE p. postponed making up TIE record for IA.
k;no an appeal until the counsel returned When
he returned, the record was made up. the appea.
taken. and the appeal bond given. This was il
december. 1925 In March following. abou,
tbe 5oth. he saw, in the Republican newspaper,
nublished al 81. Louis, an article headed Peek.
Iud.e." and found it to purpolt to be an opinion
or argument in justification Cf the decree Of The
District Court entered in the case VI Sculard't
heirs against the United States.
II annears to him 10 contain Il great many e..
rors n fact and in doctrine. Ii appears to linn to
be calculated injuriously to affect the public opin.
ion upon that and variety Of other similar claims.
in Which he was concerned as counsel. The ar.
tic,e was anonymous, and he looked On it as an
argument not presented by the Judge, whcr his
opinion was delivered. 1t produceda great sen.
saton, tended to dcpress the hopes Of his clients.
and TO dvpreciate considerably the value of their
property. ItappeareJ him rather TO be an in.
nuiry Of what the law should be. thaG peremp.
tory decision of what it was. In the Opening o!
that opinion. the Judge expressed doubts to tic
! law. and seemed TO feel as If he were wandering
through wilderness TO reach the desired object.
FURTHER discussion seemed to be invited of the
point, involved in that decision. Taking all these
considerations Into view,& believing that as ci.
/ ,ixen. independently of his character as coul
sci. he hat all undoubted right to point out the
errors in The published opinion of the Judge, and
To prevent. as far as he could, the injury they
were likely TO produce, Mr.. Lawless took up lis
pen. ant, wrote the article signed A Citizen;
Which va, published in the Missouri Advocate
and ST. Louis Enquirer. Of the Sih Of April. in
the same wear. shurtiy after that the District
Court sat by special adjournment. Hearended,
and took his place in court. Upon taking his
seat. and dispensing Of sume business, the Judge
pulled newspaper oui Of his pocket, stated what
paper 1t was. and asked, with apparent emotion,
who was its editor. addressing himself. as Mr..
I.awIess thought. particularly to the District At.
torncy, or the bar generally Mr.. Lawess re
Piled, that he knew who was the editor Of the pa
per, and that it Was one Stephan W. Foreman.
He believed. from his manner, that the Jldgc had
, in view the article which he had written; aud he
was perfectly willing that should be brought up
for discussion. The Judge asked Mr. Lanless
if he would swear TO the fact as To tie editOr.--
He said he would. and was accordingly sworn.-
Describing the article, Jude Peck dictated rule
upon the editor, to shew cause Why he had pub
!ished it, The rule MAS served upon the editor
and Mr.. Ldwlcss volunteered counsel Tor him,
he being the author oi tic article, and consider
ing II his duty to defend the editor. lie applied
to no other person to appear Tor HIN. Mr.. Law
less urged the editor by no means to give up the
author. using every argument that he could t" "a
tsfy him that it was his duty not TO yield on snch
an occasion lIc appeared in court the ola, IT.
ter the order was issued, and defended the cdl-
tor on all the grounds which suggested themselves
to his mind: OH the ground of the perfect truth
of the article, and of the absence on It's lace OF
all intention to commit a contempt. In demon
strating the truth of the article, lie REQUIRED to
the published opinion of the Judge, to all tina.
the article contained and pursued the same cnu'se
of argument, with few exceptions, as Tar as his
humble abilities would permit, which had been
taken by the honorable Manager who had open
ed this case. lie produced all the authorities
which he could rake up on the occasion, to shew
that the publication of A CitiZen,' was not a
contempt Immediately after concluding his az
gument which, he thought, had occupied more
than one day, he left the court; and that Mr..
Geyer. a gentleman of the st. Louis bar, had
also afterwards stepped forward in defence OF
the editor
I When Mr.. LawlcSs returned into court he
found Judge Peck about TO make the rule ALSO
: iute Ior an attachment upon TIE Eui'"'' w"
sidcri' Q that the Judge appeared to point a. I'M
as the author Of the article, inasmuch as he tlss
Of his clients were involved in the case he haug'
cd his view of the course which the Editor ought
to pursue, and assented to the giving up ct ms
own name as the author. Foreman was thea dis
charged from the rule, and rule Was made on
Mr.. Lawless, TO shew cause why an attact''rnV
should not issue against him, and why he .hoa'd
not be suspended from practice in that court Tor
having written the article as set forth in he a.
tachment. Mr.. Geyer, Mr.. Magcnuis. and W.
Strother, members Of the bar, appeared o.'r
Judge Peck, the next day, lie believed, ar r.
eued the matter as his counsel, When 'h at
tempted to demonstrate the intrinsic trrih o. lie
article of "A Citizen" they were stopped BY
the Judge, told that he had decided and dl'pn'
ed of that question. and that it was not oPenl"
further argument. They then proceeded to Or
cuss the questions of pure law on the mems "
The case. Their authorities and arguments %
that point we're oyerruled by the Judge VINO %'
dcrcd the article to be read TO him, paraerarNo'
paragraph. by MIR. Bates, tie District Aiior''Y'
and proceeded to examine and comment 'Fo"
IL,