Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-01-23

no more right under the law to proceed in
a summary manner against MesSrs. Stein
man and Hensel because they happen to
be attorneys in his court, than he would
to pronounce judgment against defend
| ant without proper trial. Lawyers can
| write and publish what they choose of a
judge, and his remedies against them are
| the same as those of any other citizen.
For improper behavior in court the judge
may use the strong arm, but not otherwise.
| If this was not SO. O.attOrneys would be mere
puppets, to be moved about at the will of
| the court.
The severest criticisms OF judges that
we have ever read We're printed by lawyers
in their paper books in appealing cases to
the supreme court. If Judge Patterson
can silence the INTELLIGENCER newspaper
by threat to strike its proprietOrs from
the list of attorneys, he Could by similar
course prevent every other lawyer who
has criticised his rulings from practicing
| law.
| Ii Judge Patterson has been libeled by
Steinman and Heusel he has his remedy
by a prosecution for libel, or il he has
been damaged he has his civil suit for
damages. Those are the only remedies at
law Judge Patterson has, and they are
just the same as the law gives to any
other citizen. If Judge Patterson is inno-
cent Of the charges made against him by
the INTELLIGENCER, he will discharge the
rule against its proprietors and resort to
his remedy at law. If, however, he
pursues his present purpose it looks
as if he was guilty and was afraid of
the light of day, and has resolved to play
the part of Il tyrant against a newspaper,
whose proprietors happen to be members
of his court. If Judge Patterson pursues
his present unlawful course he will bring
the administration of justice into disrcpute
in Lancaster county. SO far, at least III
this case, it looks as if Judge Patterson
had little SaSacity, all the qualities of the
tyrant, an open car to the corrupt machi
nations of politicians, which together are
likely to make his court Odious in the eyes
of fair minded men.
Too Delicate for its Decision.
West Chester Village Record.
Lancaster county, which is seldom with
out Il row of some sort among its pOliti
clans or lawyers, has II new one now. The
INTELLIGENCER, i'll some remarks on the
) Snyder case (the one which caused Eshle
man and Hay Browns suit against thu
, Neao Era), used language which Judge
Patterson of the county courts. construed
as rejecting Oh his judicial honor. ll'
, therefore called into court the TIVE
editor, Messrs. Steinman and Hensel
who, as it happens. are both mem
bers of the bar of Lancaster county, an(
; notified them that he would place Il Iul
upon them to show cause why they shOul'
: not be tlisbarred for contempt. The quas
ton thus raised is delicate one; the pre-
else limitations where freedom of the pres
: begins and ends, as to criticism of th'
courts, and especially where its conductor
, are themselves officers of the court--a
/, members of the bar are technically con
strucd to be-arc not well defined. TIN
1NTELLIGENCER S remarks certainly wer
offensive to the Judge, but whether the.
: were such as constitute the legal offence o
! contempt is 4 question which we do no
, undertake to decide.
} = The Court in Contempt OF It-e.:.
5 Philadelphia Inquirer.
Another remarkable case of offended
! judicial dignity occurred OH Wednesday a
: Lancaster, Judge Patterson, of the cOur
+ of common pleas of that venerable tow
= having issued his awful mandate againS
2 the editors of the Lancaster 1STELIL&EN
l GER to appear before him to answer 10
, their editorial expressions of opinion, no
4. as editors, but as members of the bar. Ii
their paper of the previous day Messrs
Q Steinman and uensel, who arc members o
. the Lancaster county bar, said that politi
Y cal influence had secured the discharG'
, of prisoner, and the court, in prescrva
: ton of it's dignity, being unable either t.
deny their statement or to punish then
l as editors for making it, issued a rul'
, against them 20 show cause why the.
a should not be stricken from the list of at
;. tOrneys for contempt. There is some
4 thing in the conduct of the court in thi
1 business which brings more just and gen
C eral contempt upon it than all the news
+. papers in the state could do if it ATTENDED
9 to its dignity in wise and temporal
l spirit. To follow this rule to a natura
+ conclusion it must appear that if the edi
c tors of the INTELLIGENCLR were ministers
n instead of lawyers, the court would, if
t could, have them disrobed not for wha
: they spoke in their pulpits, but for wha
: they wrote in their journal. Justice i
: made farcical and judges absurd by thes
c efforts to maintain 4 dignity that the
4 themselves make foreign to them and thei
i. courts, and they would do better to motto
l criticism less until such time rs they have
by their character and acts, disarmed it
i Even justice herself should come int
e court not only with clean hands, bu
e clothed in wisdom and calmness. Sh
: must have her cause just, and be prepared
t to establish it so. In this case all thing
e which she should have she seems to lack
: Judgment Deferred.
1 Williamsport Banner.
The editor of the Lancaster INTELLI
GESCER was called into court i'll that cit,
Tuesday to answer some questions hi
honor prOpounded respecting certain eX
pressiOns made connected with the cour
f and it's manner of administering justice
, From the vigor and spirit of yesterday
, editorials we judge that judgment was dc
, ferred for want of evidence.
That is the Point.
Philadelphia Record.
The Lancaster editors object to editoria
comments being tortured into attorney
criticisms.
, Which Would No: Work
York Pennsylvanian.
The editors of the Lancaster INTELiIGEN
GER are practicing lawyers at the Lancas
ter bar, and taking advantage of this fact
Judge Patterson took exception to an arti
Gle in their paper of Tuesday evening an,
!, commanded the editors to appear in cour
on Wednesday morning, where the judge
J tried to get our brethren of the craft t.
} commit themselves in the capacity of law
| yers. The dirty trick would not work
} however, as the editors were too sharp fO
him. The judge still thinks he has pOwe
over lawyers in their editorial capacity ant
will attempt to dismiss them from the bar