The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-12-15

oH8r8Gtfr
Judiciary should be protected and respected BY
all men, but the men who occupy these posi-
tons have no more privLssees than any othsr
drels In this country have been Judges, and tbe
number has not been few either. such q
STRIKING SMILE.
From the Fort Wayne SentineIl
Here IL apparently q blackguard laymsn, q
fellow not wearing the ermine exoer. for the oc-
cssion, and Q man who IL alleged TO have e.
capped the penitentiary on . charge OF robbiDg
widows and orphans, by q mere teehnicality,
who is FIRST guilty exacting excessive bail for
a n.bailable oflensc, and then seeks 10 play
me role OF q judicial tyrant with editors who
nus character has been properly described were
drunken Justice who nned man in the street
because the latter kicked him, on the ground
that this court il always In oontempt." y
REfREHENsIBLE IN THE RxrREkR.
From the Evening News.l
Judge Hester construed this charge into con.
tempt of his court, and, summoning the senG-
mel people before him, cody put Prsther on the
bench to try the case. His action In citing them
TO appear was silly and ridiculous, but his turn
ing the case over to Prsther, who naturslly
would be prejudiced. was repreasnsible in the
extreme. It is about time IL was settled whether
every little man who happens 70 get on the
Deo f en- Is 10 na1e such Porsr owe. his ielloys
tirely too great when In moderate hands, but II
contempt can be committed at all times and
has n 1. his noaes tn any onenorse l9ase
only becomes despok
DISGRACE TO THE COURT.
From the Republican,
There should be no constructive contempt OF
court, and remarks upon the personal character
OF a Judge out of the court room should not SUBJ
ject any man to the petty annoyance OF a petty
rascal whom accident or corruption has placed
on the judges seat. In the first place IL Is
disgrace to the court. The county, and the state,
that selfconvieted thief, who only escaped
the penitentiary by the statute of iirni-
tations, should occupy the judicial
per- which believes judicial outrage bas I hssn
perpetrated, may refer to such antecedents 81
conf mation OF Its suspicions: put II the case
IS Judge Gresham and other officers OF the
United States Court have asserted. as an acting
redress for words spoken or uttered out OF his
court that are not open 70 any other citizen who
has been maligned.
PAPER THAT KNOWS HOW IT Is.
From the Chicago Tfmes.l
Another case ofjudicial jackssism has arisen.
This time 1T is IN the state of Indiana, where q
Judge in Bartholomew county cites an editor In
indianapolis to appear before him and show
why ne snouio not De punished summary bg
the irate ass on the bench for an alleged CON-
tempt OF court committed by a too free criticism
of the said judicial ass in the public press. The
criticism implied a strong inference of corrup-
ton on the part of the judge. II the statements
OF fact in the offensive criticism were true
then corruption was not only warranted infey-
ence, but was an unavoidable inference.
If for anlmadverting upon such crooked" pro
ceediDgs by so-called ministers of the law, the
conductors of the press liable TO be ar
raigned before irste judge with unclesn
hands, 10 be summarily punished without law
or jury, by the mandate OF the man who has
subjected himself 10 the implication OF NAL
feasance in Office, II is time that the fact be
established in some other way than by the die
tum OF Dogberry. The proceeding OF the
Indiana Dogberry against the editor of the
sentinel is a gross, wanton and strocious out
rage, concerning which the Times will have
something more TO remark.