Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-04-07
PATTERSON'S COLUMN
THE NEWSPAPERS SPEAKING OUT.
His English and His Logic.

Inc second 4DSt0lment OF Tne1r Opln1Ons.
His English and His Logic.
New York Sun, Ind.
Messrs A. j. Steinman and w. Z. Hensel
of Lancaster, in the state of Pennsylvania,
are attorneys at law, and also the editors
of a local newspaper. in which they publish
ed an article that displeased local judge,
Patterson by name. This judge thereupon
ordered them to show cause why they
should not be punished for contempt, and
why their names should not be stricken
from the roll of attorneys. They made
answer, in substance, that they had COM
mitted no contempt, and that they could
not be called to account and punished as
attorneys for what they had written and
published as editors in good faith and for
the public good that if Judge Patterson
felt aggrieved the courts were open to him
as to any other citizen in like case.
After taking a long time to think over it,
Judge Patterson on Saturday filed his
opinion. The Judges English is on a par
with his logic. With such grace as he can
he backs out of his absurd position in the
matter of the alleged contempt, but argues
at great length and with tiresome reitera-
ton that in publishing what they did about
his official conduct-he wouldn't have
minded, he says, if they had said things
about him as an individual-they violated
their oaths as attorneys, and have made it
his painful but imperative duty to disbar
them. Here is sample passage OF the
opinion:
can attorney-at-law Of the largest expe-
rience, the lOftiest talents and most unex-
onyNfrn aI,np, ,atn hn
new forum to conduct trial, is obligated
to take the prescribed oath for attorneys
before he is permitted to be heard
in that court in behalf of his client.
This required oath, or one similar in
spirit is rs ancient rs the common law it.
self, and to punish for an open violation of
that obligation has always been held as in
cidental to grant of judicial power.
Hence, can it be seriously urged that that
answer can be accepted to go in excuse of
this misbehaviOr in Office by these re-
SpOndentS? That because an attOrney-at-
law is at the same time an editor of a
public paper, that the latter calling and
engaging in the duties of it emancipates
him from all the obligations his oath rs an
attorney implies? That while within the
four walls of the court chamber that obi
cation is binding, but the moment he steps
without it's wall the obligation is cancelled
the legal and moral obligation no longer
exists? The utterance itself of the propO-
sition shows it's wickedness and its folly"
Accordingly, Judge Patterson orders the
names of Messrs. Hensel and Steinman to
be stricken from the roll of attorneys,
graciously intimating, however. that their
| restoration ''rests entirely with them
selves" TO this offer of mercy the law
yer-editors reply in their newspaper that
they prefer to stand on their rights as
citizens, and are going to test the extent
of those rights in the court of last resort.
A Usurpation of Power.
Harrisburg Patriot, Dem.
The editors of the Lancaster INTELLI
GENCER, who are practicing lawyers at the
Lancaster bar, have been stricken from
the list of attorneys at that bar by 4 decree
of that court. In making the decree the
court based it's action on an article that ap-
pcared in the INTELIIGENCER which in the
Judgment of the court reflected on the in
tegrity of Judge Patterson. The article i'll
question related to 4 matter i'll which
neither of the editors was interested either
privately or as an attorney. Therefore
the motive of the editors could not have
been a selfish one and the article must
have been inspired by a simple desire to
promote the public good. While news
papers should be careful not to inter-
fere in any way with the administration of
justice in the courts, it is certainly an I'M
warranted assumption of power on the
part of a judge to attempt to inflict sum-
mary punishment on editors who are
practicing at the bar of his court for
printing in their journal criticism of his
conduct on the bench. Lawyers who are
editors have the same right as other per-
sons who are editors. Judge Patter-
son could not have inflicted the pun
ishment he has chosen to administer
in this case, upon other editors not men,
bers of his bar had they written of him
precisely what appeared in the INTELLI-
GENCER. His remedy would in that case
have been an action for libel, and that is
the remedy he ought to have pursued
against the editors of the INTELLIGENCER.
We do not believe the supreme court will
sustain Judge Patterson in this matter.
If it should the practice of the legal pro-
fessiOn and the business of editing
newspaper will become utterly incompati-
BILE.
Poor Judge Patterson.
Reading Eagle, Ind.
1t is amusing to read the arguments of
Judge Patterson, of Lancaster, for his
Judgment in striking Messrs. Steinman and
Hensel from the of attorneys of his court.
1t will be remembered that Messrs. Stein
man and Hcnsel arc the editors of the
Lancaster INTELLIGENCER, and as editors
criticised the action of Judge Patterson's
court, which, under the law, they had a
right to do. This criticism enraged Judge
Patterson, and he entered rules on them
to show cause why they should not be adj
judged guilty of contempt and disbarred
from practicing law.
His decision dismissing the rule for con-
tempt and disbarring them from practicing
law is remarkable for many things, among
which is its general muddy character, its
vagueness, excuses, apologies, vengeance,
and a lack of law and reason to support it's
conclusions. The people like manly
judge, hate tyranny and small things.
However, Judge Patterson has distinguish
ed himself by this opinion, and in the ages
yet to come, if he had not delivered it, he
would have been utterly unknown. This
opinion, however, will preserve his fame,
but what kind of fame?
Dc Jucidibus Nil Nisi Bonum.
Philadelphia Ledger, Ind.
If the supreme court shall affirm Judge
Patterson's Lancaster) decision disbarring
two attorneys of his court, who are editors
of the Lancaster INTELLIGENCER, because,
as editors, they harshly criticised his ju-
dicial acts il will he notice to all nractiS-