Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-04-03
la1lcaster fntelligerrer.
EVENING. APRIL 3, 1880.
Stricken from the Roll.

Stricken from the Roll.
A little bird flew down to the INTEL
LIGENCER Office late last night and
brought the news that Judge Patterson
would file his opinion this morning in the
case of Messrs. Steinman and Hensel,
and that the judgment of the court would
be that the alleged offenders should be
expelled from his bar. The same little
bird seems to have been flying all around,
and early this morning it was whispered
confidentially in many circles that the
hour of fate had come. BY eight o'cock
this morning Judge Patterson had rep
resentative Of the Examiner in his office
copying his opinion, which was read with
much solemnity of manner to An eager
and attentive audience in court at IL
a. m.
OF course, the judgment Of the court
is no surprise to the persons upon whom
it has been visited. Ever since the ar
gument before Judge Patterson, there
have been outgivings from his closest
political and personal friends, that he
proposed to 60 on with the matter which
he had undertaken. The gentle intima-
tions that g one word of apology from
the respondents, one line of disclaimer
by which he might let himself down,
would give him pretext to abandon the
proceedings, fell upon unheeded ears
here. The editors of the INTELLIGEN-
CHR had not taken the position set forth
in their answer and argued by their
counsel without due forethought, nor
without calculation of the con-
sequences and of the character of the
man with whom they had to deal.
Those who read the lengthy and some
what tedious opinion of Judge Patterson
from its beginning to it's conclusion, will
find in it no proposition which was not
clearly anticipated by Mr.. Shapley in his
argument, and, as we then declared and
now believe, fully answered by it.
The court pays Difference to the answer
to the extent of utterly abandoning the
rule for contempt, which; in the g en-
thusiasm of virtue" it had entered in
ignorance of the law; and the opinion
deals entirely with that phase of the re-
spondents' offence which is adjudged to
he such a breach of professional fidelity
as to justify their severance from the
court.
AS to that we answer to Judge Patter-
sons opinion, as we answered to his rule,
that if we have called his integrity into
question his remedy is that of every
other official who deems himself injured
or wants his integrity vindicated-to sub
nit his case to a jury of his countrymen
and ours, who shall decide between our
accusation and his guilt. He disbars us
because he says we have reflected on the
courts integrity, in charging that for po-
litical reasons the court did not call
Messrs. Eshleman, Brown and johnson
to account for abusing its confidence.
Nobody denies that Michael Snyder's ac-
quittal twas accomplished, as has been
shown, by J. W. johnson, ex-chairman,
j. II. Brown, ex-chairman, and District
Attorney Eshleman, chairman of the Re.
publican county committee, by false rep
resentatiOns to the court, made for the
corrupt consideration that the Sny.
ders were the best Republican work
ers in the Eighth ward" The accused
themselves have sworn to this. Nobody
denies-,lnless it be the judges of the
court-that, having done this, the attor-
neys were guilty of practicing an imposi-
tion upon the court and Of attaching a
disgrace to it, for which they should
have been held to account. Nobody al
leges that they were so called to account.
and the eINTELLIGENCER'S sole offence
was in ascribing this failure of the exer-
else of the courts power and its duty to
the fact that all the parties implicated
as we'll as the judges - belong to the
Republican party.
Now, if that is not the proper reason
for the courts failure to do it's duty
what is In the several columns of opin-
ion read by Judge Patterson, in his vim
dicatiOn from the charge upon him,
there is not line to explain why his
court took no cognizance of the imposi-
tion practiced upon it. Much stress
is laid upon the failure of Messrs.
Steinman and Hensel to disclaim any
desire to impeach the integrity of the
court much force is given to the court s
assertion of its own virtue much feeling
is displayed in the declaration of the
g moral obliquity" of the offenders; but
nowhere does the court show any dispo-
sition to explain why in the case OF
Steinman and Hensel it was so quick to
resent the suspicion cast upon its integ.
rity, whereas in the real case of imposi-
tion practiced upon it, and disgrace at,
taching to it, it &C made no sign'' of self
vindication; but it unnecessarily takes
upon itself the guilt of it's members, by
espousing their defence and shielding
them from punishment.
The court disbarred us because, it
says, we have libeled it, and as to the
libel it constitutes itself judge, jury and
executioner. We have respectfully sug-
gested that it was "nOt competent to
determine, in this form of proceeding
that the respondents did unlawfully and
maliciously publish, out Of court, libel
upon the court, and to hear and deter
mine disputed questions of fact, involv-
ing the motives of the respondents and
the official conduct of the court ITSELF"
In support of this we have cited a long