The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1880-11-18
Rights of Judges aud Editors.

freedom of the press, than that Of Judge
Patterson against. .Steinman and Hensel
has ever been decided, not only in thi;
Commonwealth, but in the country. The
decision is favorable to free and un.
shackled journalism, in a larger sense
than .has ever been admitted by our
jurists; coming from the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania, being enunciated by SO
learned a lawyer and so eminent Judge
as Chief Justice Sharswood, will give. it
weight and force for many generations to
come.
The defendants in this great test case
are Andrew Jackson Steinman ard Will
liam U. Hcnsel, publishers and editors OF
the Lancaster Pa Daily hteligencer,
and both of them lawyers, members of
the Lancaster bar. The offence ceiconsistcd
in unfavorably criticisiug the Associate
Law Judge of the Common Pleas and
Quarter Sessions Of Lancaster County.
The Judge had acquitted one. Michael
Snyder, an active local politician of Ian
caster, of an alleged violation Of the
liquor laws. After the case had been dc.
cided the IteNigcnccr commented upon
it, saying that the acquittal was procured
"by prostitution Of the machinery Of
justice to serve the exigcncies Of the Re-
publican party; as all the parties lmpli
Gated, as we'll as the Judges, belong to
that party, the Court is unanimous, for
once, that it need take no cognizancc Of
the imposition practiced upon it, and the
disgrace attaching to it."
For the publication of this structure
Judge Patterson summoned the two
editor-lawyers before him to answer for
contempt of court, and show cause why
they should not be disbarred-lhat is,
stricken from the roll of practicing at
torneys-for misbehavior as lawyers, and
unEaithfnlness to the Court of which they
were sworn officers. To this Messrs.
Steinman and Hensel made answer. that
Judge Patterson's proceeding was irregu-
lar that there should have been a sworn
complaint, as foundation for the pro-
ceedings; that they had not been guilty
of any contempt; that they could not be
held responsible as lawyers and officers Of
the Court for acts which were done as
publishers and editors OF q newspaper;
that as citizens they would meet charge
of libel, leaving their guilt or innocence
10 be decided by due course of law; and
that they were ready to stand trial in the
capacity in which the alleged offence had
been committed, that of editors and pub
fishers of newspaper. Judge Patterson
overruled these pleas and disbarred
Mcssrs. Steinman and Hensel. Under
an Act of Assembly, passed in 1879, they
appealed to the Supreme Court of Penn
sylvania, and a decision in the case was
given by Chief Justice Sharswood, at
Pittsburg, on Monday, October 4. His
Honor took broad ground against the
arbitrary action of Judge Patterson. He
not only restored Messrs. Steinman and
Hensel to their places at the bar of Ian.
caster, but he used such unmistakable
language as the following:
To say that an attorney can only act or
speak on this subject cases before
Court under liability to be called to ac-
count and to be deprived of his profession
and means of livelihood, by the very
Judge or Judges whom he may consider
it bis duty to attack or expose, is posi-
tion too monstrous to be entertained for a
moment under our present system.
Justice Sharswood also holds that, even
if attorneys are convicted by a jury of
libeling Judge, the disbarring of him
would still remain an open question.
There are technicalities in this mastery
and equitable decision; it goes to the
heart of the facts of case that is SAM
pie of many, in which Judges of Courts,
where newspapers were concerned, AFRO.
gated to themselves dictatorial powers,
disregarding all forms of law in what
they were pleased to call the yindication
of the Bench. Judges are fallible, just
as other mortals are; just as liable to
err; just as prone to be governed by par
tizan zeal. If Judge is wronged by
newspaper he has bis remedy at law, just
as other citizens have; he should receive
no less, he should ask no more; and he
is not likely to do the latter in the face
of the decision of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania in steinman and Hensel
vs.. Patterson.