Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1869-02-01
THE CASE OF Mr.. BRADLEY.
Decision Of the Court as to His Readmis

II paper
| submitted to the court few days ago by Mr..
| Bradley processes TO have two objects One 20
offer an apology TO this court for his lang age
| TO Judge Fisher in the Criminal Court; and the
other " protest against our applying 10 his case
] tie rule recently adopted excluding from prac
| nee in all the courts organized by the act OF
| March Sd, 1853, any attorney who NAV have
been dismissed or suspended by either OF them.
so long as the order for that purpose continues
In force
In Its character an apology-sInce the de-
| cislOn OF the Supreme Court in er part Brad.
ley1ihis court has no longer any authority to
decide upon the paper. i he Supreme Court
has decided that Mr.. Bradleys offence was not
onereo IN TINS courf, or 10 one Of its Judges. He
therefore owes thus court no apology.
As II respects the other object of the paper,
we are of opinion that n decision at this time
would be premature.
Our own records show that MI Bradley has
bt en- dismissed from the bar of the Criminal
Court. They show also the contempt offered
by him 10 that court when its order of dismissal
vas read; and his subsequent improper be-
favior towards the Judge who had held that
court, in delivering him the letter commonly
ues igI ated "the challenge;
But since Mr.. Bradley seems Inclined to
make az apology for his conduct. and the paper
now be ioI the Court is his third essay in rnar
direction, we do not propose TO enfore our
rule against him al present, In order that be
may be afforded a reasonable time and oppor
t1ni'y for apply ing TO the Criminal Court for
restoration 10 the bar.
The Criminal court being quite independent
d.
ci>iOn OF the Supreme Court, We have no power
AZ present 10 compel the ,cission its order of
dismissal even If the apology now offered were
ever so satisfactory - us.
But much these views have, dOubtleSs
occurred 10 Mr.. Bradley himself, and his pa
per has gone into the files of mis- case, in tais
court, ana seems 10 be intended quite as much
for yind1cation as apology, we fee called u pom
Ia exDress our judgment as TO its character, IL
order that some OF Its errors well of fact as
OF opinion and law. may not seem hereafter 10
nave received from our silence the sanction OF
this court.
Apology implies confession OF consciousness
o WONG. ana. II made at all should be open,
frank clear, and unconditional. Justification
Is OIzerent thing, and is fatal 20 apology.
The TWO spring tom opposite sentiments. aud
are wholly incOngIUOus. The man who feels
10 offer apology. Ii he propose ~ apologize,
he should make his apology as broad hi
oftense.
The present case, in our judgment. requires
from Mr.. Bradley paper characterized by
manly ingenious sincerity: coEfessing tn.
wrong, and reIracting the causes OF off.pse IN
terms OF precision, direct and clear 10 the COM
mon understanding IL will not do 10 retract
the offensive Language IN one sense and not in
every
With the causes which led to Mr. Bradley's
Dismissal from the bar by the order OF Judge
Fisher whilst holding the Cha NAL Court We
haye nothing now 10 do. TRat matter has
never been brought 10 the motto. Of this court
Judicially. As Judges here We are bound to
presume the order to have been made for sui.
fficIeRt reasons.
Alter that order and the reason for it We're
read IN court
Mr.. BI adley said Has the Court al iourped,
Judge Fish-r.-No, sir.
Mr.. BIadley.-Then before il does AL lourn
i desire TO say. in presence OF this audience
that the statement YOU have read is false from
beginning TO end
In the paper before us Mr.. Bradley says
that when he made his return TO our rule
10 show cause In this case, al SAID 81
he had mi I'D N f<.fr
be had only 10 express his profound regret and
ask 10 be- permitted, 20 far possible 10 recall
any act and withdraw any expression which
might tie Interpreted mdignlty u the
judicial tribunals of this District" he did so
with the understanding in his own mind a. the
time that the language he had used 10 Judge
Fisher in the Criminal Court was not a con.
tempt of court, be ause he believed Judge
Fisher was then claiming to hold court with
out authority OF law.
AT the time then that this first apology was
offered TO the court ii amounted to nothing, ac.
cordIng 10 Mr.. Bradley's own understanding
of II, as lie now informs us. Sill IL had the
sembiance Of apology, sounded like apology,
and untl' this paper was presented to US, we
ed was intended by Mr.. Bradley to be
al apology. Our object in referring to this
adnlssion will appear presently. He Gays
=" \ onr honors have since held that J Qdge
Fisher was then holding a court, and the lac.
guase so employed by me was addressed to
nln X open court i, therefore, ar the scse
sp. al take This opportunity TO withdraw those
expressions as 0dtT'SStd 10 a jtiqs on p ben h
fer would lot for moment o. understood "a
mastain that 10 charge Judge in open court
WIN iaisehood Is not contempt of court"
lie WNhUaWs those expressions now ONLY
b, cause this court mas since decided tina, Judge
Fisher was holding a court at the time they
were used. Mr. Bradley himself believed the
CONT was sitting at the time he uttered them
for he said 10 the Judge, Has the Curt ad.
Iourned yet r. and on being told by the Judge
hat IL had not al oIrned, he added, Tim
q fore IT does adjourn, desire to say, IA The
presence OF thus audience. that the statement
you have r. ad is false from beginning to end
No regret Is yDressed in tins paper for the
insult offered 10 In, Court, unless it be reached
~ tracing the meanips OF tAe words I'm Tie SAN.
s1i, through long senieLee ih FORMER par.
OF the Haper, obscure from its owl. bn,,
conCitIons and qualifications; and then N r-ISSs
we'll be disputed whether that is the M ut
he intended these words 10 have 'aning
noX aSknow lodges, ~ -; .rturn, which he
y q o. Re rleap'- e have seen, was in.
'Fp anetS:r .-.gless as an apology.
Glfhculty in compr-hending this
"rI.oey is that the Insulting expressions are
Withdrawn with the qualification as .'ad-
dTeSS,d 10 JUdGe On The bench" Does this mean
that the laIguas OF ins ult is Withdrawn IN
card 10 the Court as an Intangible, invisible
entity, but not a 10 the Judge in his private
Capac'ty We think II was Intended TO have
that neaning. We can find no CdIer reason
able construction 10 give TO ".
IL our judgment Dir. Bradley should with
draw his offensive language in every sense and
: fully as though II had never been 0ttered.
In matter OF this sort II is not possible TO sep
erate The judicial from the priv ate capacity OF
The indge. Had MIR. Bradley a. the time OF
giving the ms ult openly declared that his Ian
euage was intended TOR the man, and 10: Tor
the juoge, me contempt would have been The
same In court, the private capacity of he
nudge wb 0 holds IL is lost in his judicial chrr-
acier, and every nsult offered him Is an indg-
hi'v TO the court.
The withdrawal of the insulting iangugge,
SOS 10 n jydye on tie bsrct," might possibly,
therefore, by a process of teehnica! logic, ~
every purpose. But in q uestIon like tins.
inquire for the meaning OF the writer of zee
apology, and not for the legal effect his lan-
guage might receive, If that meaning he con-
irary 20 his oSD intentions. The offensive Ian
guase ought 10 have been Withdrawn WI nolt
qualification.
AGAIN, Mr.. Bradley says. "When l made the
explanation which j did, ON Monday of last
week, 1 said i had acted under sudden i'm
pulse and continuous excitement. / meant aud
supposed the court would understand ana
ceive that ss my apology Tor having used such
language under such circumstances"
Can Mr.. Bradley believe that any court could
accsp. such an apology as this, amounting TO
ns,hing more than saying Il became excess
lively sngry. and " hilst in that temper charged
the Judge with q tiss ne Of faIsehoods in indi.
cial pToeeedin gs, and only regret that did so
be cause the courts have decided such language
10 be q contempt" On the whole We regret to
say the paper before seems TO us TO be want.
ing in every essential req aired in q genuine
! apology.
sADts ~