Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-10-07
BENCH, BAR AND PRESS.
Opinions of the Newspapers of the Count

The decision of the supreme court in the
Lancaster disbarment case is important
not SO much because it restores the disbar-
red attorneys and editors, as because OF the
definition Of the law which it gives and
the expositions which it makes Of the
ethical relations, which exist between the
bench, the bar and the press. That the
supreme court would reverse the decision
of the Lancaster court disbarring Messrs.
Steinman and Hensel was expected as
matter of course by all who understood
the case, for the disbarment proceedings
were disgraceful and contemplate to de-
gree almost unprecedented in Pennsylva-
mia judicial annals. Two editors, who also
happened to be members of the bar, un-
dertook, in the journal under their control,
to animadvert severely on the conduct OF
Judge Patterson in concluded case with
which neither Of them had any official con-
ncction. This animadversion was, as the
supreme court set forth, a libel on its face,
but the judge, instead Of prosecuting. un-
dertook to summarily deal with the Offend
ers under self-instituted contempt pro-
cecdings, and, as matter of course, only
succeeded in burying himself beneath
load of contempt. Instead of appealing
to the law Of which he was minister, he
usurped functions which belong to no
judge in any civilized community. and by
so doing added proof to proof OF his unit
ness for the performance Of judicial func-
| tions.
The supreme court, in reversing this
absured and wicked decision, however,
| does 4 good deal more than expose its ille-
gality, for it declares, in very express
| terms, not only that it is the privilege but
| that it is the duty of members of tle bar
! to be the censors of the bench, and that,
under an elective judicial system, such
| censorship is, or ought to be, one of the
greatest surcties of the integrity Of the .iu-
dietary. With regard to the right of the
newspapers, whether conducted by mcm-
bers of the bar or laymen, to criticize free
ly and fully the bench. the supreme court
is equally emphatic. But has the bar in
Pennsylvania hitherto taken the same high
view of it's functions that the supreme
court does: It certainly has not. Much
has been done, especially in this city, to
counteract the i'll influence of the elective
judiciary system, by the best men of
| all parties combining to secure the re-
election, without contest, of judges who
have been void of offense. The movement
in behalf Of a non-partisan judiciary has,
for the most part, had the cordial support
Of the bar, but the bar influence on the
bench has also, for the most part, begun
and ended with endorsement of
this, that. or t'other judge seeking re-
election. For the rest, the members Of
the bar have been subservient to 4 lament
able, and frequently to disgraceful ex-
! tent. and judicial malfeasanccs that have
elected emphatic condemnation from the
press have merely caused high
minded lawyers to blush and to stam-
mcr out lame excuses and pleas
that the dignity of the bench should not
be lowered By plain spoken criticisms Of
judges who misconduct themselves. Yes
tcrday wo;.id bc entitled to figure as a red
letter day in the history Of the state, were
the bar to resolve to accept the broad hint
up to it in letter and in spirit The bar of
Pennsylvania can, if it will, so elevate the
judicial tone thai 4 repetition Of such 4
proceeding as that of Judge Patterson
against the Lancaster INTELLIGENCER
would be practically an impossibility and
it can, if it will, do much towards securing
right speedy demand for return to the
system of an appointed judiciary and life
or good behavior terms. As matters now
arc. the bench holds out it's chief induce
ments so secOnd-ratc lawyers; while the
first-rate arc either afraid to make de-
mands in favor of the higher prOpricties,
or have discounted tho honors and respon-
sibilities of their profession by determining
that it would not be worth while to make
them.
The Right to Critic!se the judiciary.
New York Sun.
The supreme court Of Pennsylvania has
Just rendered decision Of great import
ance to the bench, the bar and the press.
In January last the Lancaster ISTELII-
GENCEE published an article charging that
the Judges OF the court of quarter sessions
in Lancaster county lad decided certain
case wrons!nlly from motives Of political
partisauship. The editors were both
members of the bar. They were ordered
by the court of quarter sessions to show
cause why they should not be disbarred
for contempt of court in making this pub
lication. They duly appeared and avow-
ed their responsibility for the article and
their readiness to make good the charge
bcfcr, n jury, saying that it was..published
solely in their capacity as conductors of a
newspaper, in good faith, without malice,
and for the public good.
Notwithstanding this defense, the court
of quarter sessions adjudgcd them guilty
of professional misbehavior, and ordered
! their names stricken from the roll of attor.
neys. A writ of error to review the con-
viction was then sued out of the supreme
court, before which the case was argued
by able counsel, among whom was Alex
ander X. Mcclure, Of the Philadelphia
Times, in behalf of the appellants.
That court has now unanimously re-
verscd tho summary conviction for con
tempt, and has ordered that the editors of
the Lancaster INTELLIGENCER be restored
to the bar If their publication concern
ing the judges of the court of quarter ses.
sions was ibelous, they can only be pun
! ished therefor in an action triable before a
jury; and they have proclaimed their
ability to establish the truth of the charges
which they made whenever required to do
| so in such proceeding. But an attorney
cannot be summarily disbarred for pub
fishing with good motives and for justifia-
ble ends that which he believes to be true
| about the judiciary.
Indeed, Chief Justice Sharswood, who
delivers the opinion of the court, goes
much further than this, and holds that un-
der our elective system, attorneys are
bound to make public any acts which they
believe to constitute judicial misconduct.
He says:
'sIt is now the right and duty of a law
yer to bring to the notice Of the people,
who elect the judges, every instance Of
what he believes to be corruption or par
tisanship. No class of the community
ought to be allowed frcer scope in the ex-
preston or publication of opinion as to the
capacity, impartiality, or integrity Of
judges than members of the bar They
I,ox 1,a,& - II.