Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-06-02
lancaster f1tellige11rer.
WEDNESDAY EVENING. JUNE 2, 1890.
An Entertaining Answer.

10 the argument OF our counsel III tne
matter, is long -drawn-out
affair, being contained in book of some
sixty-fve pages. Its sweetness, how
ever, is sufficient compensation for its
length, and we would not like to take
line out of it, 50 entertaining is it. Ro-
mances are generally amusing; and this
is sort of a romance-there being SO
much in it that is pretty but not true,
and so much that has sound without sig
nificance. The trio of counsel start out
with wonderfully constructed history
of the case, and then they load up heavily
with long quotations from big lot of
cases that refer to a great many things,
but don't often get near the question at
issue in this case. When that gun is fired
off in the supreme court the.nOise will be
great, like the reverberation of 4th of
July cannon rammed to the muZZle with
paper, but the killed and wounded, if
there are any, will more likely be the fel-
lows firing the gun, from its bursting,
than those it is aimed at, from its big
wad.
After this discharge Of law-book quo
tations which are duly attested by the
signatures of counsel, come a few refresh
ing pages to which nobody has courage
to put his name. They are waits; and
are introduced by statement that "our
apology for occupying SO much time and
space is the Importance of the case, i'll
volving as it does question of vital in
terest to the bench as well as the bar of
the state" TO which we suggest
might have been truthfully added g the
miserable editors, including the two de-
capitated individuals whose cases we are
now considering"
We excuse the omission, however.
Among the many more important omis-
siOns, variations, misapplicatianS and
contradictions of these interesting pages
this one is scarcely worthy of note. 1t
is really pleasant to read an argument
prepared by gentlemen who are so inno-
Gently unconscious of the truth and who
so calmly state what is false. OF course
they do not know that they are doing it..
1t is possibly due to the force of habit, or
perchance to real ignorance. They Sim
ply discuss Il case i'm which they do not
know the facts, and consequently reach
a triumphant conclusion with great ease.
They say for instance that we charged
that "this court was part and parcel of Il
conspiracy to shield from punishment a
known criminal, and that the machinery
of justice was prostituted by the judges
for that purpose" We charged no such
thing. Then they go on to say
that this was "a deathly assault,
not upon the private character
or conduct of individual men, but
upon the integrity and official char
acter of the court, and it stands without
claim of truthfulness, excuse, mitigation,
palliation or denial.'' That we quote
because it sounds SO pretty and has so
little i'm it. The declaration that this
deathly assault upon the integrity of
the court does not affect the private
character of the judges is very re-
markable. 6 Deathly assault - is good in
itself but when it is without g claim of
truthfulnesS," it does not seem so very
poisonous; consciousness of which, per-
also without denial" which certainly
makes it little more deathly. And
when we are told that it hasn't g eX-
cuse, mitigation, ,palliatiOn," three nicely
sounding words with much similitude
in their meaning, the lawyers have
done their whole duty in making this
point plain.
And they cheerfully pass to another.
To the argument that no man ought to
be judge in his own case, they declare
that ''this is not the judges case, it is
the peoples case.'' That "deathly as
sault,' you will see, is first transferred
from the individual judge to the court,
and now it is handsomely delivered from
the judge on to the dear people which
is good.
And then we sail on to the answer to
OuT complaint UllaG we OupllU TO nave
had jury trial before being punished
for libeling the judges. ''What need
of a jury trial when the crimi-
nal has confessed ? Here the ap-
pellants have avowed their guilt" That
sounds good and strong. What is the
use of fooling with jury trial when a
plea of guilty is entered. Supreme nom
sense indeed! We confess that we were
a little astonished at this point, not 10y
the argument, but by the statement of
fact. 1t was so novel to us. We did not
know that we had confessed. On the
other hand We were sure we hadn't.
We have always been confident that we
had not libeled the judges in what we
had said. Evidently somebody has got
wrong-shipped on the facts. 1t is nice
to be able to get the facts wrong some
lines it helps one vastly in getting up
IN argument or an interesting tale
In the language of the ring the Chicago
situation would be recorded to-day, as
6 first knock down for Blaine" )" or rather