Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-11-09

not measure language. or as,iosts its preci 70
force, the Court has seen At to avoid the con :
,Ioversy as II origtnali, a,oss an tots rule, and
excitement, to the explanation Of the con.
sciences of the parties, as far as they NAV be
able to remember them, or TO the explain alton
or Oblivion, which is the better treatment of
occurrences transpirlng In the midst OF pas
sion -,tT
The court in this rule, as It will be Observed
in asking the explanation Of humility from one
OF the most distinguish membsrs OF the bar,
commenced where that discussion and discre.
pascy Of recollection left of, when the facts
are well ascertained and when they are I'M
denied. Thu in vestigation before us begins with
the language Of the respondent ia reference 10
The order of the justice holding the Criminal
Con {, is confins 10 that which follow that
orSeT, and 10 n extent embraces matter con.
tanned in it or any mat er prece ding IL; though,
for myself, must be permitted to remark, in
this connection and IN relation to that trial that
would have been felt long before mad been
presiding, or the case would have been ad.
Journed Tor want OF power to enforce its pro-
Iectiop. The department OF counsel In that
case, antecedent 10 any dis cusson between the
judges and counsel, who 10 the respondent in
this rule, was only to be explained by the ex-
citemerts incident TO the case, a nd should have
been visited with a prompt admonition. Ian.
guage such az "a witness is in my protection
and will teach you how to respect him :" is
not compatible with the protection presumed
to be afforded by Court that presides over q
case, ana that holds the doctrine that wit.
nesses, attorneys, and clients are all under its
protection.
such an assumption OF the jurisdiction of a
court cannot be submitted to by the Court
without subjecting itself to well merited con-
Tempt for a court that submits to a contempt
OF Its authority 10 and ought to be itself held
In contempt; and when q court permits the
members OF the bar to assume its province Is
protector OF its words. 1t manifestly needs
protection. i only allude to this inasmuch as
the facts Of that case has passed to u.s. not ae a
issn he I'm
nation OF the morale Of the department on the
occasion of that trial.
with the recital Of the order OF Judge Fisher,
dismemberlng the respondent from the bar
whether that order In its inception was justi.
NED by practice, oy authority, or whether its
be debatable question, but 1t is sufficient
for this case to say that that order does
not enter into 1t. 1t was not what
transpired aptecedent to that order.
or what was Incorporated In to its body tn ar il
made the subject Of Investigation now, but it
is the following reply of counsel upon its be.
ing pronounced or entered mp. Mr.. Brad
the Court adjourned Judge Fisher-No sir.
Mr.. B.-Then before it does ad icurn, desire
to say, in the presence of this audience, that
from beginning TO end"
Now, whether the Court was adjourned or
dissolved as the mist of the morning is
dissolved, ii is clear that neither the Judge
or Mr.. Bradley at that time regarded
it as having been adjourned: yet be 1t under.
STOOD tnat their opinions are not conclusive
upon the question. If there was then no Court
capable Of protecting itself as Court. what.
ever misconcephon may have been obtained
upon the part OF the Justice holding 1t or
OF counsel at the bar would not change
gao amino. Fcs there Court there 1t is
very Enormously and metaphysicaiIy ar
gued that there was none; that the
act of Congress cor tinuing the unfinished trial
al nrf
Ito another merely carries the trial into such
court, but does not prolong the couri itself or
that If II IL carries the court into such term, it
carries IL shorn OF the power OF self protection.
or at least deprived of such power the moment
the jury is discharged, which 1 regard as sy.
honomous propositions. 1t will be readily
nlty and power to preside over the admin.
isuation of justice when the life Of
a citizen is at stake-a case second in
importance to none, and especially the case on
uial at that time, would have the DO wer in
heTant and incidental toevery court to protect
the majesty OF the admins tration OF the law
and the integrity OF the tribunals from misbe-
havior OF its officers or contempt of its author
ity. The law is guilty Of no such ab7urdity as
putting its tribunal upon such a grave mission
without arming that tribunal with all the
agencies necessary to protect the administra-
tien OF justice from its original process to its
final conclusion. The court must therefore
continue with the Judge, not as q man, not
simply as a Judge, but as q court. 1t is imma-
terial at what stage Of the case, or whether at
all, as far as this que -tion is concerned, when
this imaginary or real offence on the part Of
the responder. transpired: The point Of time
spondent contends, Is upon the discharge Of
the jury. The court has no power, after
that dissns,Se, TO DO anything sl:s can.
istence, and therefore cannot punish the in.
the trial. That view of the cases, it appears to
us, Ia elevating the incidents of power to the
position OF the fundamental power OF
the court. 1t makes this power no
longer dependent upon the right and duty II
exercise justice. but makes 1t an original an
Independent occasion or exercise OF iurisdic
ton. we cannot accept these positions a
correct. We believe that when udge Fishe
made his order, and when Mr.. Bradley pro
nounced its statements false, there was a court
discharging the highest functions known to
surpassed by none instituted by the law. so
far as the parties, who had moral participa.
ton or profe- sional participate In its trans.
actions were concerned. Because 1t is no
mans lie Is weighed. But passing
about the fact that Judge Fisher
was presiding over the Court until he al
journed 1t in the ordinary way in which Courts
of justice are adjourned, which 10 the uniform
and only manner known in the prectice of
looking inside OF what transpIred within
Court we do not understand it TO be seriously
commended by the very able respondent to this
rule thatit was no. in fact q contempt Weuu
derstood him to impliedly admit that it would
have been contempt provided there had been
Court to reduce to contempt, but to insist
that inasm UGH as in mis- Judgment there was
not any there was no attempt-could not be
any.
1t lie true that the respondent urges in his
answer that he entertained no disposition or
intention to irpugn the dignity Of the court,
but for this he assigns the reasons that there
was no court, and that, besides, he felt il to be
bis duty as man to meet the falsehood on its
ut'erance, and repel 1t as soon as 1t was ut
tered, go that he might not be- regarded as as.
sentIng TO il. That l understand to be the pre-.
dicaie Of the metaphysical purgation Of his
proposition, and be refers us to authority on
that point He refers MS to a bill In chancery
charging fraud, in which all sorts Of iniquity
and fraud are charged on the part Of q party
in court. The argument 10 as we under
stood the answer, that. inasmach az John
Doe has a right in q bill In chancery
TO charge Richard Roe with being q rascal,
therefore q member OF the bar has a right TO
charge member Of the Court with being a
rascal. Knowing, as i do, the clear percep-
tons ard great ability Of tbs respondent, my
admiration OF them causes me to believe that
he would not rest the case upon tn 70 authority
Certainly there is no phrase In bill In chan
Gerry or in an answer charging one party with
corruption Of any kind, that can be made q