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

Wilkcsbarre tnicn-Lcader
Judge PattcrsOn's law, which holds
lawyer responsible as Il lawyer for what he
says as an editor, is novel law, and bad
law. When lawyer, who is also an editor,
shall have been formally convicted of GRIM
inal libel, then he, perhaps, ought to be
disbarred. But a lawyer, who chooses to
be an editor as well, has rights and re-
sponsibilities rs lawyer, and rights and
responsibilities as an editor. What wrong
he does as a lawyer he can bc punished for
Us a lawyer. What wrong he does as an
editor, he can he punished for rs an editor.
But it is in conflict with common sense to
assume that he can be punished rs a law
yer for what he does rs All editor, and Just
rs ridiculous rs to assume that he can be
punished as an editor for such violations of
court ethics as he may be guilty of in his
capacity as a member Of the bar.
Contempt of Court.
Philadelphia Press.
The case of Messrs. Steinman and Hen
sci. editors of the Lancaster INTELLIGEN-
GER and members of the Lancaster
county bar, who have been ruled to show
cause why their names should not be
stricken from the list of attorneys, will he
argued at Lancaster to-day. The re-
SpOIucllS, III CHcII plpct, CHdIScu thstI
certain acquittals before Judge Patterson
were procured by "a prostitution of the
machinery of Justice" and intimated that
the Judge was party thereto. This his
honor considers contempt of court, and
he proposes to disbar the journalistic at
torneys. The common law gave courts
large discretionary powers to punish for
contempt, but in this state their powers in
that respect have been largely curtailed.
1t appears to be somewhat an open ques-
ton, however, whether these laws are
applicable to attorneys who, as officers of
the court, occupy relation to it distinct
from other men, and whether the special
authority of the court over the as attorneys
will extend to them in their actions i'm I:
different sphere.
The law relative to contempt of court,
and what does not fall within it, was ex-
haustively considered pro and con. in the
impeachment trial of Judge Peck of the
United States district court for the district
OF Missouri before the United States Senate
in 1890. In this case one Luke +. Law
less, a practicing attorney in Judge Peck's
court, published in a st. Louis paper a
criticism of one Of the judge opinions, and
enumerated eighteen separate errors in law
or in fact into which he claimed the court
nstu ldlicN. JuNSc TcCk lmMcullteIy ClCeu
the publishers OF the paper before him to
answer for contempt, but it appearing that
Lawless was the author of the offending
article, lie was substituted, and subse-
quently sentenced to one days imprison-
ment, and was suspended from practice at
that court for eighteen months.
On the plea that he was outraged and
oppressed by this action of the court, Law
less memorialized the House of Represent
atives, but tho Judiciary committee, Daniel
Webster, chairman, reported adversely OIL
his petition After Webster's transfer to
the Senate George McDuflic of South Car
olina took up the matter in behalf of Law
less, and finally the House voted to i'm
peach Judge Peck for a high misdemeanor.
James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, was
chairman of the managers and William
Writ senior counsel for Judge Peck. BY a
vote of twenty -one to twenty-five the Sen-
ate refused to sustain the impeachment,
Mr.. Websters name appearin. among
those who voted not guilty.
1t appears to have been settled iii this
case that it is the inherent power Of all
courts to vindicate themselves against
insult and contempt. Disbarring attor-
neys for publications tending to bring the
court into discredit has not been of infre-
quent occurrence in this country. The