Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-01-31
The Lancaster Contempt Case.
ladelnhia Times Editorial

Philadelphia Times, Editorial.
The rule recently entered in the Lancas-
ter court by Judge Patterson, requiring
Messrs. A. J. SteinInan and W. L. Hensel,
members of the bar and editors of tire Lam
caster lNTELLIGENCER, to answer for con-
tempt and to show cause why their names
should not be stricken from the list of at
torneys, was heard yesterday by President
Judge Livingston and Assistant Law Judge
Patterson. Mr.. Rufus E. Shapley, of this
city, appeared for the defendants on the
rule, and presented their formal answer,
asserting that the proceedings recited in
the predatory part of the rule as having
taken place in the presence of the court
did not occur in any legal proceedings in
said court, and were cOrdna non .judice, and
that the respondents are not answerable
for contempt for any answers made in
court or for declining to answer any of the
questions propounded to them by the court
They declare further that the publication
complained of was not made in the pres
cnce of the court, or of or concerning any
pending or undetermined case before the
court, and that they are responsible and will
answer in any proper form for the pubica-
tion according to the law Of the land.
The case attracted much attention, es-
pccially among the members of the bar
and the press, and bIr. Shapley's elaborate
argument was heard with manifest interest
by both the court and the audience.
From the brief points given in our special
dispatch, it will be seen that the question
was discussed by Mr.. Shapley with every
proper respect to the court, but in the
positive terms which an issue of such
grave import to the legal and journalistic
professions demanded, and that the judges
invested the occasion with all befitting
dignity. There was no exhibition of indi-
vidual feeling on either side, and it is
reasonable to assume that the judgment of
the court, when the dispute shall have
been soberly considered, will be worthy of
the court of one of the most intelligent
counties of Pennsylvania.
The fact that it requires the concurrent
assent of both the judges to make a rule
absolute, imposes upon President Judge
Livingston the chief responsibility for har-
mOniZing the issue with the law, and the
Judgment of the court must be his
Judgment. How pi Ofoundly he deplored the
reproach upon his own court by the testi-
mony in the Neac Era libel suit, was man-
ifested by his personal exertiOns to effect
| an amicable adjustment Of the case before
it reached the jury, and he must we'll ap-
preciate the responsibility that attaches
to him in gathering this crop of thistles
that has grown from the ill-tamed field of
justice. Had the court been half as
prompt to take cognizance of the contempt
of both judge and law, displayed in the
palpable subordinatiOn of the channels of
justice to political interests, there would
to-day be no need for the court to sum-
mon editors for contempt to preserve popu-
lar trust in the Lancaster judicial tribu-
mails but blunders have multiplied them
selves until the court must pause and take
it's latitude afresl We shall be glad if
the court can give itself safe deliverance.