Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-10-09
BENCH, BAR AND PRESS.
Timely and Just.

Timely and just.
Cecil Democrat
The decision is timely and just. Had
the publication been malicious Judge Pat
terson had his remedy. A judiciary that
is put beyond the reach of criticism, which
is circumscribed by strong and well defin-
ed safeguards, is unknown to American
law, and it is too late to attempt innova-
tlOns that would give courts mastery
over the press, which neither usage, nor
public interest nor justice can allow them.
Take u Rack Seat.
Lititz Record,
This is just what every levclheaded per-
son.expected of the supreme court, and
Judge Patterson can now sit back and con-
slider over the great wrong he has so un-
justly committed. He has little sympathy,
especially SO among the members of the
Lancaster bar.
a Gcntle Hint.
NerailSo spectator.
Chief Justice Sharswood, of the supreme
court, now in session at Pittsburgh, filed an
opinion last Monday morning in the case
Of Steinman and Hensel, members of the
Lancaster bar and editors of the Lancas-
| ter lNTELLIGENCER. who were disbarred
from practice in the court Of common
! pleas of that county. for an adverse criti-
cism OF the conduct Of Judge Patterson,
bitrary action Of Judge Patterson is re-
versed, and the victims of this Jeffreys on
Il small scale arc fully restored to their
violated rights and privileges. Much of
the credit of this victory belongs to Col.
Alexander Mcclure, whose eloquent and
exhaustive plea for the disbarrcd lawyers is
a model Of it's kind. Steinman and Hensel
are vindicated by this decision. The bench
can only be vindicated by the retirement
OF Judge Patterson, voluntary or other
wise.
West Chester Jeffcrsonian.
Not only have Messrs. Steinlnan and
. Hensel and their friends cause to rejoice
over the Judgment of the supreme court,
but all advocates in this state generally Of
an untrammcllcd press will feel gratitied
at the overthrow Of the unwarranted judi
ciai despotism of the Lancaster judge.
Messrs. Steinnan and Hcnsel, in CRITICS.
ing tho conduct of the court, simply did
their duty as editors, for a newpaper falls
far short of it's duty if it fails to condemn
as we'll as approve. Judge Patterson, it
was alleged by the INTELLIGENCER, per-
verted the high office of his judicial posi-
ton to the furtherance of corrupt political
schemes and the INTELLIGENCER rightfully
called him to account for his gross abuse
Of justice. 1t charged him directly with
CONFERENCE.-The on the bench in shieldidg
Republican wrong -doers, who were thus
rewarded for services rendered to the party.
Instead of bringing action against the
editors for libel, Judge Patterson fell back
upon the weak ground Of his power as a
I s,,I: of3S ~,,I chn nn,,k
upon the lawyer-editors unless they made a
retraction. This they manfully declined to
do, and the court then carried out its threat.
ened act of tyranny. But this gross abuse Of
power, this parody upon justice, was too un-
tenable to stand, and the supreme court,
in pointed and incisive decision, restored
the attorneys to the standing which they
had never forfeited, but from which
through malice they were temporarily re-
moved. Messrs. Steinman and Hensel
have begun 4 good work there are a
number Of foul spots in Lancaster politics
that need exposing to the public eye in
order that they may be cleansed. Repub-
lican rule has, as it always does, bred cor
ruption and disease, and the general well
fare of the community demands thorough
purging. The editors of the INTELLIaEN-
GER can stand persecution and thrive on
it, and we shall look to them for an agrees
i've warfare.
\ Baltimore View oft.
Baltimore sun.
In Lancaster, Pa, last winter, Judge
Patterson, of the local circuit court, dis
barred Messrs. Steiaman and Hensel,
lawyers at the bar of that court, who were
also editors and publishers Of the Lancas-
ter INTELLIGENcER, upon the ground that
they had been guilty of ''gross libeP'
upon the court, in the shape of a criticism
in their journal. The article was published
last January, and reflected upon the judge
for the acquittal of man twice indicted
for keeping disorderly house:
This man was al active ward
politician, and the article declared that
his acquittal was secured by ga prostitu.
ton of the machinery Of Justice to the
service of the dominant party. The
judge summoned the attorneys into court,
demanded the authorship Of the article,
and, upon their refusal to give it, ordered
answer for contempt and be disbarred.
On the hearing Of the case Judge Pattcr-
son dismissed the rule for contempt, but
struck the names of the attorneys from
the roll of the court Oh the ground that
they were "gui!ty and convicted Of MIS-
behavior in their Office of attorneys in
this court i writ of error was taken
to the supreme court OF Pennsylvania,
the case was fully argued at the May
term. and on Monday last Chief JUS
tice Sharswood delivered the opinion of the
court. broadly reversing Judge Patterson's
order and restoring Messrs. Steinman and
Hensel to their Office as attorneys. The
chief justice does not deny the right of a
court to disbar attorneys for official mis-
conduct, but contends that the seventh
section Of the firstarticle of the Pennsyl-
vania bill Of rights guarantees attorneys, as
well as other men, immunity from liabil-
ity to punishment in case of the publica-
ton of papers relating to the official con-
duet of officers or men in public capacity,
unless the jury decide the publication to
have been maliciously or negligently made.
Tho attorneys, in their answer to the
judges charge, had replied that in
making the publication they acted in good
faith. without malice and for the public
good, and the truth or falsity of their
answer could not be impugned by the court,
but could only be tried by jury like any
other matter of fact. ''The office of an
attorney" said Judge Sharswood, twas
his property, and he cannot be deprived
Of it unless by the judgement of his peers
and by due process of law. Editors, ''he
said, ''moreover: do not forfeit their con-
stitutional rights as freemen by becoming
attorneys, and the immunity to editors in
the case of the particular provision of the
bill of rights was plain and unmistakable."
! Fit Subject for Proper Criticism.