The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1874-01-08

| ing SolB mO9lOo 0keO SoG UNI 70 ImbOtm
himself he could easily have learned that
| the powers OF the Courts Of the U nited States
in cases Of contempt is defined BY the act Of
Congress of March q, 1881 Chapter IS and
that, by thst act such nm exerci-e Of power
a. is here invoked, would be 4 gross and in
defenrible assumption.
A proper OBLIGATION Of professional courte-
~ and . due acquaintance with the forms
Of judicial preceience regret ID have sug-
gested, too, that ii The court hal any power
IN the premises the proper motion would
have been To lay the parties in question UNI
der rule 70 show cause Why the proposed
punishment should not be inflicted and not .
motion IA in this csse in their absence 10
the peremrtorily, visit upon them 80 degra-
ding an intliction.
| But beside this there il in the affidavit
nothing that could justify this court in ex-
ercising the puwer, even did il pOses it.
The simple Tact is what is styled abduction
Of William Phillips il all that IL sense 70 the
| whole Of the residue OF the affidavit consist
ing Of rumors, NOT reliable a. such, not af-
the proceeding u directed. The question
filed by the party alleged to have been alb
Quoted.
II is one Of the best settled principles Of
Law that the bert evidence shall be produced
| Of which Gaze il susceptible. The reason
Of these principles is too obvious TO be un-
known. When unfair testimony il attempt.
cd to be fOisted upon tribunal, . violent
presumption arises that the better grade Of
chrirtians would not sustain the proceedings
but instead OF this would show either q vim
a.
1t would be fairly presunlable from the at
tempt thus summarily 10 visit punishment
upon thu~e persons mentioned in this motion
by thissinferior testimony, that the testimony
Of Mr.. Phillips himself would exoneraie
them either wholly or in part from whatever
was conceivable in this treatment.
In relation TO ID. Scott Boyle, the clerk,
these views hold in equal force, except a. 10
the power Of the court. About this, in his
case, there can be no question. But, on the
other hand, there is an objection to this pro-
cesding n it regards hun, which does not
apply to the others. This in, that the relation
between the court and the clerk, is one with
which no attorney had right 10 interfere.
A motion to dismiss . clerk il, to this
court, entirely unsanctioned by precedent,
either in past practice or previous reading,
and cannot, therefore, he otherwise regarded
than a. arrogant and presump-
tious interference, only to be
excused upon the possibility that it
may have had its origin in the want Of
knowledge Of relative rights, rather than in
an intentional obtrusion in matters with
which the main. in this Case, has nothing
TO do.
la 80 far a. the motive avowed in the
few remarks which were made when the
court expressed its willingness to have an ar
gument in support Of the motion, is concern
cd; that the mover designed TO give the
court the opportunity Of disconnecting itself
from such persons rs are discreditable 10 it,
1t does not See that il Is under any obligation
to respond in gratitude. Believing and
knowing that lis whole course in the past
has been TO discharge LIS duties with the
mcst perfect impartiali.y, and with an un-
flinching purpose 10 suPPre,~, ~ far as de-
pended upon its influence and power, all
disorderly and vicious conduct, without
favor or prejudice; and still, with an unwav-
ering determination, proposing TO itself .
similar line of action in the future. 1t has
no fears that it properly apprtci ates its re-
sponsibili,ies, and will, TO the satisfaction of
those whose good opinion is worth preserv-
ing, maintain Its dignity. |
Ii was in this spirit that, when an outraged |
PoPulace was ready to immolste, on sudden |
excitement, and without law, an individual |
charged with homicide, that the judge, who |
pre-ides in this court, left his then home,
forty miles from the scene, and placed him.
self in firm and determined opposition to
such an outrage. Ii was in the same spirit
that, when he became aware Of the outrage
pointed to, but not sustained by the affidavit
in this case, that he instituted nm inquiry
into the matter and, upon hearing, held
those persons now in question, and all others
implicated, by bonds, for their appearance
at the three next terms Of this
court 10 answer whatever should he
then and there found against them,
and in the meantime 10 keep the peace
generally and especially toward the said
Phillips.
Nor car the court Appreciate the moiesty
which could prompt the taking into the care
If any particular individual, of it, moral
especially Of one who has had
much less opportunity Of being aware of the
acts Of the case than most Of the gentlemen
ii the bar.
The court can not appreciate the only
,ther sentiment expressed in support OF the
notion. when opportunity was offered for an
,rgumen, in its support.
IL was suggested that courts, as we'll as
,iher departments Of government, were open
o criticism and subject to the control of
popular sentiment. To fair criticism this
,ourt, nor any other properly constituted,
,as no objection, hut in 40 FAR "A the iniima-
ION affects its control by popular sentiment,
I takes occasion TO enter lis unreserved re-
,rrliaiion.
1t will be high time that another Judge
hall take The place OF the present, when he
uccumls in the discharge Of his duty TO the
popular sentiment.
Had he 40 done heretofore he would
ave stood aloGf in the instances OF interior
nee heretofore referred 10. He las not, a.
Judge out Of curt. nor will he when presid-
ng yield to any such influences, but, in the
aithful discharge Of his duty. he is prepared
I all times, he trusts, to interpose, If need
e, at the hazard of lite to maintain the in |.
pgrity OF his office and the supremacy Of the
avs.
There is appended to the affidavit upon
Inch this motion il based, another pro-
resting to state what the Judge here presiding
aid in relation to his duty TO remove the
Jerk of this court, at the time Of the inveti-
alton before referred 10.
1t IL 30 easy TO forget or misunderstand ,
or,ls used that il II no matter of surprise
nat such should have been the case in this
,stsnce.
No such words as are imputed were used
u that occasion.
What was said vas what this court is still .
lady to repeat. that the judge had almost !,
IL that il vas his duty to remove the clerk, !!
nd that upon the first hearing Of his being !,
IMPLICATED in such a transaction, he had felt q
lat he ought to remove him, that it was .
npossibie that the relation should l
E allowed 10 continue il such o
any similar dereliction should occur, but u
e had concluded, under all the circum- .
aEces, that it was not necessary 10 the vim -
ication of the court that he should be dis q
laced; and n 10 the attorneys, that he had &c
riousIy thought, il his power extended 10
r, Of laying them under a rule to show u
u.e Why the ir names should not be stricken b
ON the roll. Snch were the sentiments
sted on the disposal of the case, and before
ey were particularly stated to the clerk
mseif Mr.. Johnson) and others.
What the reasons were which led to this
Inclusion and which now justifes the court
its action in retaining him, and which il u
lieved will justify it in the minds Of all
ore who are not viDdiciively set to disap- in
owe, will close this paper.
Mr.. Boyle professed 10 be very sorry that n
had 20 far forgotten the proprietiea Of his "