Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-12-07
The Eisher.Bradley Case.
THE RETURN To THE RULE OF TaE UNITE
STATES sCPREME COURT.

be was ousted by Judes Fisher az the cJncIu.
| sion of the Surratt trial last year.
The Judges say that said rule on int 70 be di =
| charged, because said Bradley was removed
| from the said Office Of attorney of said court
only after due notice had been served upou
| I'm, and he had been heard in defence, aud
| afier mature consideration by the court. That
/ said order of TIE court was a Judgment of the
| court In regard to the matter within Its own
exclusive Jurisdiction, and not hlsct TO review
! form Of proceeding.
The return quot from 81 pdrte Sacen.ber "a.
/ Howard 3, and proceeds to show the cause of
removal OF Mr.. Bradley, reciting the sclne
| which took place in the Criminal Court room
August 10, 1-61, when Judge Fisher read a
statement In reference 10 the conduc: of Mr.
Brad ey, which the latter charged was untrue.
/ The return says:
IL can hardly be- doubted that this was gross
contempt of court, If there was a court sittn 2
AT Inc time, and justified expulsion, unless
atOned Tor by ample apology Bur no apoIngy
has ever been offeI,d. On the .ontrary t1s
contempt has been cef- nded, and Its Jurisdiction
ait mpted even before this court One of the
fIouhds OF Justification IL, that the nudge t.
WON tLt contempt was Offered had no ID ,wer
10 make the order of expulsion, which pro-
ouctd the act Of contempt; and another that
.GV act Was not contempt of the supreme
CONT u the District of CUsumbia-that court
! having. subsequently,, taken up the subject,
a. E"r', and removed the petitioner from its
The Court argues that AT the time the con.
tempt was given Judge Fisher was holding A
supreme Court, AMI exercising its criminal
jurisdiction as such supreme Cohrt. and IN.
contempt IN question was, therefore, a con-
Tempt OF the authority Of the Supreme Court
O'htT wise no member of the bar could be- dis
missed tor the CCntempt of the auth rity of tha
court, unless such contempt was offered 10 the
court IN general term. Thus protected, anv
member might, II so disposed, (and this is by
NO means an eXTayagant suppositIon should
the peliloner succeed In the present attempt
walk round the courts, from one 10 another
Is A
the court would D. powerless 10 rId itself of bis
presence.
This conduct of MIR. Bradley. however. was
Eot merely contempt of the authority of the
supreme Court If this District, but Was also
gross mistehayIor in his office of attorney, aud
Tor this reason. also. his ofiense was cogniZlbla
by the court In general term irrespective of the
doctrine OF cOntempts.
Whether viewed as a contempt or as misba-
haNlOr, the supreme Court OF the District OF
Columbia possessed exclusive jurisdiction 10
make The order removing Mr.. Bradley from ats
bar, and that decision Is beyond revirw.
But there remains still 10 be examined another
cause for the order OF removal of Mr. Bradley.
"nlCh CId not take place In cODrt. Imme.
dIa;ely alter the court had ad lourned on thu
10th of August, Mr. Bradley followed Judg-
Fisher INTO one OF the street cars, anu there. IN
person, banded MN mote, IN which he Mr..
Bradley says:
THAT DO time may be unnecessarily lost. |
beg you Will let ne know, as soon as yen con
venieutly can, when il will suit you 10 meet
ne cut of this District that we NAV arTang.
10 our mutual satisfaction, the points OF differ
ence between us, without mourning the risk
and Cdium which might accompany any con.
trOyerSy here, or IN public.
This note bears date the 6tn of August. aud,
OF course. contains no reference 10 the occur
rences IN court on the lOtn. The insult for
which II demsnds, or seems 10 demand, re-
dress, it states, was given by Judge Fisher in
the courtroom on the I'd OF July. IL was.
therefore. a deliberate act. Ii its object was
10 obtain satisfaction according 10 the a.,apti-
10 40 ma
violation of the act of Congress OF ~ b OF Feb
TGaTy, 40, which makes H. a felony To send CT
receive. III this District. a challenge 10 fgh, a
uueIi ana PROVIDES the same penalties for such
as shall seek TO eyade Its provisions, by ma kim
arrar gemen's in the District, to give or receive
sueh Challenge out Of the District.
One Of the reasons gwen by Mr. Bradley in
his answer for delivering This note il: That !.
was not deemed advisable TO seek those -xpit-
nations, or that compromise and AL iu~tln-nt of
private GuaITrls which too often result in q
breach OF h. peace, IN a jurisdiction where tn
parties might ne made ameuaOl- l. a criminal
Proceeding before the court of which one Of
the parties was member" A b--ach OF III
leaC" cut OF fht Distinct was, then, ,ur Of fl-
cCEuneencies contemplated when the note was
delivered.
But the same answer also says that the not.
'was no' challenge, nor meant nor intended
Ter one. Il vas precisely VIVA, has been
stSt'c, opening way fJT an annie able settle
Inent Il private controversy aud in anorb T
place, hat '.hIs OBJECT and determination WAS
10 open the speedfest way 10 TIN. exuiartti5n
and retraCti5n. which every honorable nan
must DC desIrOus 10 maze when he becomes
satisfied hat he has done an injury u an.
another"
The y sforiune is. howeve-, that these anna
bic Ni-ws werr a secret in the writer's own
bosom. On ITS face, The note, II not a perfect
challenge. was plainly ps:;entouS of mischief,
according TO the manner Of the du-iIist. l.
was ths result of more than month OF de-
liberia ION. The resolution Of its writer w1s
therefore, not TO b. shaken T. language was
reserved, lofty. punctliOus, calm. Diet, rIninea
The IN! seriousness Of IL inIima,Iyns was ter
Titls
such was the face it presented TO Judge
Fisher. It's peaceful Intentions were conc AID
from his sigh: and these were. that i. shOuI!
open The way 10 explanation and retrac.iun.'-
and the Judge was the party who was % be
brought 70 "-XplanatIon and r-traCjIon." Tn
ttrTUTs of the noe were a pTet-nc- and a sham,
intended only 70 operate on IA. adge's :e,E.,
ana 20 70 lead the way 70 peace.
And this. We doubt not, IS a truthful ex-
I.aI alton. Indeed, We have ourselves never
regarded the note as an earnest transcript o.:
IL writer's intentions. and his disclaImar
though made past ttt"ns matrm, may B. tpXs1
fOr JTUe, and tE- rather SO when " r-cur 10 tn
fact OF It's long delay, and The Jstenrt;iOGs puo-
hcity OF us delivery Dy the hand Vi the writer
Lims eli-a kird # proceeding not allow q by
the code amongst gentlemen who are serious ia
tBeir pUTsDIt Of .'satl>faCt'On.'
We respectfully submit, therefore, that the
case OF The petitioner has not been m-ndcd Jv
these explanations and dHavOwaI~ A COurt
81 IN experiment as this, upon their f.. IT,
would soon b. driven from ITS STATS or. 1.
possessing the power, but too pusilianiInJus -
use II. lust sink into deserved contempt. lu
showing cause against The present rule, We
have relied entirely on the facts Ia the record
before the court. either stated or admitted nv
the petitioner himself. anu on such authorities
a W supposed would ~ most wpIghty Ia tai
urihEIal. TIE return is signed by all the
Judges.
S-
TEE POINT OF Rocks fNETRCPOLTTAN1
RAILROAD CAsK.-AccOIding 10 M i0Grnmeut,
this case came up again before Justice Walter
a, three o'clock on Saturday, when M Cook,
council FOR the prosecution, stated that since
the case was last up, on Friday, Messrs Cox
and Buchanan, attorneys for the defence, had
applied for and received in IuL elton to
Restrain the Corporation from proceeding