Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-04-08
Judge Patterson's Fatal Error.

Judge Patterson's Fatal Error
Philadelphia Times.
If Judge Patterson had disbarred Mr..
Steinman and Mr.. Hensel for criticism
upon the court that could not be legiti-
mately inquired into, or for a criticism
that left the court without the power Of
vindication save by punishment for mis-
behavior in Office, there might be some
apology for his violent and vindictive judg-
ment but just the reverse is the truth in
the case in question, There is no attempt
to conceal the meaning Of the editorial
article complained of. 1t distinctly i'm
puted an Indifference to the impartial ad-
ministration of justice on the part OF the
judges, and it stated the fact upon which
the imputation was predicated. 1t was
not mere wanton insult to the judges it
was in no degree a studied contempt of the
court but it was declaration of the
dereliction of judicial duty that demanded
the notice Of Judges Livingston and Pat
terson.
The charge implied in the editorial of
Messrs. Steinman and Hensel is 4 very
grave one-one that if true, demands the
most fearless reprObation of the press and
the public, and one that if false, demands
the severest punishment the law could in
flict upon its authors. 1t raised an issue
that every consideration of justice to the
judges and to the public required should
be judicially investigated, and it was suffi-
GENTLY grave to warrant any measure Of
legal punishment if the impartiality of the
court could be fully vindicated. Nor were
Steinman and Hensel alone in their offense
%l,o rf f6ou faa Of off
ders. Every public journal in Lancaster
county that is looked to as honest and
fearless in its criticisms, charged that there
was deliberate miscarriage of justice in
the Snyder case that demanded the notice
of the court and the Times has offended
against Judge Patterson tenfOld more than
the INTELLIGENCER, if the publication for
which the respondents were punished was
4 libel upon the administration of justice.
With such imputations coming up to
the court from many public Journals, all
reciting facts which were developed before
the court by the testimony of its sworn
officers in the Nep Era libel case, why did
not Judge Patterson resort to the clearly
legitimate remedy proffered by the law to
acquit the court from these serious impu-
tations? And why did he select Steinman
and Hensel fer punishment when others
were moro offenders than they, if
there has been offense at all? 1t was
no trial of the issue and no vindica-
ton of the integrity of the court for
Judge Patterson to punish summarily
for misbehavior in Office. On the contrary
it was cowardly evasion Of the issue that
he should have manfully invited if he is
innocent. His fatal error was in sitting in
judgment upon grave charges made
against himself and delivering sentence
without atf'ording any opportunity for his
own acqui,tal or the establishment Of the
| guilt OF his accusers. 1t was the accused
sitting judicially in his own case and de-
nying all opportunity TO decide it upon
the merits and when he did so, he SIM
ply pleaded confession aud avoidance at
the supreme bar of honest public opinion.
If Judge Patterson has been wrouged by
Steinman and Hensel, lie owes it to HIM
self, to the dignity of the office he holds,
and to the sanctity that should pertain to
pure administration of justice, to summon
his chief editorial accusers to legitimate
judicial trial of the issue. lie should have
done so at first and thus escaped a blunder
that cannot but be regarded as worse as a
crime; but now, when his judicial despotism
has called out with increased directness
and emphasis the accusations against his
official integrity he should promptly
| appeal to the law to exculpate
himself. He has judicially de-
| cided that the publication of certain facts,
or assumed facts, is an imputation upon
his judicial integrity, and the vital issue
! to him, to the Lancaster courts, and to the
| public, now is, whether the assumed facts
| are facts Or falsehoods. II they are true,
| then by his own construction, he is a dis
honest Judge if they are false, both himself
and the court have been atrOciously libeled.
But the accused judge is not to judge his
own case, any more than the accused burg
lar can decide his own guilt and summarily
punish his accusers, and the assumption of
Judge Patterson to disbar his critics is a
confession that he is unwilling to have i'm
partial judicial inquiry into his impartial
| ity as a judge.
Not to Stop Here.
| Pittsburgh Telegraph, Rep,
After long delay Judge Patterson has
| decided the case of Steinman and Hensel
attorneys, and editors of the Lancaster IN
| TELL1GENCER. A rule on them was grant
ed requiring them to show cause why they
should not be punished for contempt in
criticising the court through their paper.
This rule was discharged on the ground
that the OtfenSe was not committed IN
| court, but the rule to disbar was made alb
solute, the judge holding that the as
sumption of editorial duties did not re-
lieve them from the obligation of their
oaths as attorneys and officers of the
| court. The case will not stop at this, for
according to the opinion a member of the
bar connected with the press must keep
| his opinions of the court to himself, or run
| the risk of being expelled.
An Honest Confession of Hopeless Ignorance.
| Lancaster Examiner, Bull Ring.
The public press is generally taking a
hand in "trying" Judge Patterson for dis
| barring Steinman and Hensel of the In
TELL1GENCER. They mostly bring him
in "guilty'' of doing what he ought not
to have done, which may be true, but
whether he had light under the law so
to do we propose not to decide, but wait
and see what the supreme court will have
to say as to the law. 1t appears to be
popular to denounce him as modern
Jetfreys, or a judicial ass, with the news
paper fraternity. We will accept the
Judgment of the court of last resort as
Ill. H.