Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-03-11
A Hesitating Judge.

Philadelphia Times.
The Lancaster INTELLIGENCER, whose
editors are hanging by the eye-lids as men,
bers of the Lancaster bar, have very prop
erly called the attention of Judge Patter-
son to the fact that several cases reserved
by him some weeks ago for decision, in
sluding the cases of Messrs Steinman and
Hensel for alleged contempt of court, seem
to have escaped his attention. The prompt
ness with which Judge Patterson directed
the rule against the respondents, without
action of the bar, or formal complaint of
any kind, requiring them to answer as
lawyers for their public criticism Of con-
cluded legal proceedings as editors. ce,-
tainly implied that he we'll understood the
legal grounds on which he based his action
and an early decision was reasonably ex-
pected.
1t is now more than 4 month since Judge
Patterson heard the argument Oh his own
rule upon Messrs. Steinman and Hensel to
show cause why he should not strike their
| names from the Lancaster bar; but he
evidently inclines either to dispute with
his own purposes or to question his right
| to do what he manifestly intended to do
when he hurled his judicial arrow at the
independent editors. 1t is possible that
there are considerations OF expediency
which have halted 4 settled judicial intent,
and it is more probable that it has finally
dawned upon a very commonplace juds Q
that he is not the authorized censor of tie
press of Pennsylvan with plenary powerto
punish editors who happen to be members
of the bar, without trial, as his malice Or
caprice may dictate. Whatever may have
been the persuasive agent, it is clear that
Judge Patterson has concluded to make
haste slowly, and the exhausted patience
of those who are awaiting his Judgment
has publicly summoned him to the perfOr-
nance of his duty.
There have been intimatiOnS that Judge
Patterson would evade the issue brought
| upon himself by permitting the rule to
sleep indefinitely i'll the judicial pigeon
holes; but the question involved in the
dispute is Of vastly too much moment to
the bar and to the press to permit him to
escape the responsibility he publicly as
sumed without formal complaint or even
suggestion from any one but himself.
1t involves the fundamental princi-
pie of the freedom of the press so
distinctly protected by the constitu-
| tion, and every newspaper published
and every member of the bar is more or
less directly interested in the determiua-
tion of the law. If men like Judge Patter-
son, who have not only their intellectual
peers but their superiors ON the editorial
staff of every important newspaper in the
state, can summarily punish lawyer editors
for contempt by fine, imprisonment or dis
missal from the bar, it is quite time that
the bar and the press were judicially in
formed of the fact and Messrs. Stein
man and Hensel very properly in
sist upon Judge Patterson following
up his proceedings to judgment. He
is not in the most comfortable po-
sition in which a judge could be placed,
but he must remember that he is just
where his folly put himself, and he must
get out of it the best way he can. If he re-
verses himself by the dismissal of the rule,
he will find lucid explanation somewhat
difficult, but if he does not reverse himself,
he will be reasonably certain to be reversed
by the supreme court and either horn of
the dilemma is uninviting. Judge Patter-
son may have the consolation, however,
that other judges in Pennsylvania have
made fools of themselves by strutting fam
tastically before the public in the abuse of
their brief authority and it may add to his
comfort to know that such judges seldom
commit such fOllies more than once.