Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-01-30

ted in court and the act of 1885 took away
all powers of courts to punish, as con
tempts, publications out of courts he
passed to the second subject Of consid
eratiOn-the rules to disbar. For the
same reasons as before given, it was un
necessary to consider the question as to
whether there was any breach of probes
siOnal fidelity in what occurred in court.
1t seemed to be admitted that there was
none. Hence it was only necessary to ex-
anime the question as to whether court
had power to summarily punish lawyer,
for an alleged libellous publication, made
as an editor, concerning case in which
he was not interested in any professional
way, and which was not pending nor un-
determined.
Upon this most vital part of the case he
adopted the line of argument above given
and quoted from a most exhaustive brief,
involving probably hundred English and
American authoritative judicial opinions.
In the course of his argument he said
81 claim that when became a lawyer l
did not lose single right of citizenship.
claim it is my right outside of the court
room to speak of any judge or court as
any other citizen. If this were not so
how powcrless members of the bar would
be i'm discussing the merits of aspirants to
the judgeship. While ignorant editors or
the meanest laymen could discuss this
matter the lawyers best qualified to speak
concerning and most deeply interested in
it could make no criticism upon a corrupt |
or unfit judge, who aspired to reelection,
lest they be arraigned at his bar and sum-
marily stricken down in their profession"
Judge Patterson 1t cannot be assumed |
that any criticism is meant in the authori |
ties quoted except such as calls in question
the integrity of the court. TO ordinary
criticism it is of course liable, but when its
integrity is attacked its powers are larger.
MIR. Shapley: will try and convince the
court that it has no power even in such
cases, beyond its presence, to punish Off
GERS of court, except as it may punish any
other citizen. An attorneys Office is his
property not to be taken from him upon
4 charge made by a court, determined by
a Judge as complainant, prosecutor, court
and jury, but only after Z: constitutional
Iilti Ill WHICH Iie OHen>e Sl:tll Dc legally
established.
In IN eloquent and logical conclusion,
Mr. Shapley dwelt upon the relations of
bench and bar, and the Importance to the
bench rs well as to the bar of maintaining
the independence OF the attorney in his
office. To establish the rule that he should
be restricted where all Others have free
dom would be a stab at Justice, on her
very altar by her own high priest. To deny
to the great body of educated lawyers,
most competent to judge of the fitness and
integrity of the judiciary, the right to ex-
press their opinions of it, at the proper time
and in the proper place, and when and
where all other people have 4 right to ex-
press such opinion, would he blow ut the
judiciary ITSELF and at the independence of
the lawyer and the freedom of the press.
TO remark by Mr.. Shaplcy that nearly
all leading newspapers had some lawyers
on their staff. whom the doctrine depended {
on to make these rules absolute would dis {
bar, Judge Patterson answered that news
papers too often discussed legal questions
in a prcjudiced and partisan manner. {
TO which Mr.. Shaplcy re- ioined that such |
reports or comments were generally made
by editors who were not lawyers.
After the argument had been finished ,
Judge Patterson took the papers in the :
case and adjourned court until q p. IN.