The national Republican., 1868-12-07

titioneTs of the law before them, rs well A.
all ministerial oincers. Or other persons who
shall use any Indecent libertie. to the lessen.
spective courts, and to diseountenanoe and
punish the same, according to the nature OF
the offence, either BY suspendins such praeti-
petuslly, or for a time, or to punish such prac.
titionefs, or ministerial oficers, or other per
sons. sons. By ane, at the discretion Of such court
not exceeding four thousand pounds OF TO.
bacco In the superior courts, nor two thousand
pounds OF tobacco In the several county courts
VII within % this province on each offender, for any
Whether viewed as a contempt or as misbe-
hayior, therefore, the supreme court Of the
diction to make the order removing Mr.. Brad.
ley from Its bar, and that decision is beyond
d. but there remains still TO be examined an.
other cause for the order of removal OF Mr..
Bradley, which did not take place In court.
Immediately after the court had adjourned
ss Soys @S @ By ss 10 sss jSsSs
ia person, handed him a note, of which the
'o'iow'ns '' 00pxiw..ursoro,, Au. g. 1857
"Hon. George p. Fisher: '' '''''
SIR: In the alteration which occurred be-
tween us when you returned to the court room
after the adjournment, on the I'd Of July last,
then pleased e add hYou know where to md
fern for whatever say OF do,n or words to
opprobrIous. .epithets. There is but one Inter.
among gentlemen. / told you could walt;
and am gratided to fad that you have recoy.
cred, and that the trial Of the then pending
,"That no time may be unnecessarily lost, i
beg you Will let me know, as soon as you con-
veniently can, when Il viii suit yout to meet
to our mutual satisfaction, the points Of dif,'
ference between US, without incurring the risk
and odium which might accompany any con.
"with the same view hand you this note
in person, and am, sir, your most obedient ser.
want,
This note bears date the 9th OF August, and,
Of course, contains no reference to the occur.
renccs In court on the 10th. The insult for
dress It states, was given by Judge S Fisher In Ia
the court room on the I'd Of July: 1t was,
therefore, deliberate act. Il Its object was
men, It was In violation OF the act OF
Congress OF goth OF February, 1880, which
this District, challenge % to fight i daei; and ID
provides the same penalties for such as shall
seek to evade its provisions, by making ar
10 oas the u ;sa to Ee receive
One Of the reasons given by Mr.. Bradley In
his answer for delivering this note is; "That
It was not deemed advisable to seek those ex-
plantations, or that compromise and adjust
ment OF private quarrels which too often re-
suit In a breach OF the peace, In n Jurisdiction
where the parties might be made amenable to
criminal proceeding before the court OF
which one Of the parties was a member" A
t breach OF The peace out Of the District was,
when the note was delivered.
But the same answer also says that the note
was not challenge, nor meant nor intended
for one. Itwasprecisely 1t what has been stated,
~ Inc n M 10 fnr an,Ia Ia aaNN
private controversy;n and In another place,
that "his object and determination was to
open the speediest way to that explanation
must be deIirous to make when he becomes
other"
The misfortune is, however, that these amla.
BILE views were q secret In the writer's own
bosom. On its face, the note, II not perfect
challenge, was plainly portentous OF mis-
1t was the result Of more than month OF de-
liberation. The resolution OF its writer was,
therefore, not to be shaken. Its language was
The mysteriousness OF its intimations was ter.
rible.
Such was the face 1t presented to Judge
from his sight; and these were, that II should
open the way to explanation and retrac.
tion," and the Judge was the party who was to
The terrors OF the note were pTetence and a
sham, intended only to operate on the judges
fears, and SO to lead the way to peace.
And this, we doubt not, is a truthful ex plan.
garded the note as an earnest transcript OF
Its writer's intentions, and his disclaimer,
though made post Hfem mpfdm, may be taken
for true, and the rather so when we recur to
the fact OF It's long delay, and the ostentatious
publicity Of its delivery BY the hand OF the
lowed by the code amongst gentlemen who are
serious In their pursuit OF "satisfaction.o -
We respectfully submit, therefore, that the
case OF the petitioner has not boen mended by
these explanations and disavowals.
A court destitute OF the power to protect Its
judges from such experiments as this, upon
their fears, would soon be driven from its seat;
or, II possessing the power, but too pusil-
luminous to use 1t, must sink into deserved
contempt.
In thus showing cause against the present
rule we have relied enti rely on the facts In the
record before the court, either stated or ad-
mitted BY the petitioner himself, and on such
authorities AZ we supposed would be most
The return, we admit, is argumentative, but
1t is a return In answer to q rule, to show
cause and we have only followed In this res.
peet, the precedent set by the judges OF the
Court OF Kings Bench, In the great case OF
III, In their return to an order OF the House OF
Lords, quoted at length with enthusiastic ap-
proval BY Mr.. Justice Baldwin Ia er pdris
Cranc, Peters 2l2, sc.j that, also, of Judge
Conkiing, 10 sr parfe Bradstreet, 7 Peters, e5ij
Cranch, O. Q. R.. and In II Peters Rep, 62T,
where the return made by the respo nd mt con.
sisted Of an exceedingly elaborate argument
on questions Of constitutional law, covering
forty.three pages Of printed matter.
ID. X. CARTIER, Chief Justice.
GBoRoR p. FIsHER,
ANDREW WrLrE, Justices.