Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-04-03
DISBARRED.
JUDGE PATTERSON FIRES HIS GUN.
THE LONG WAIT TERMINATED.

That % One Moro Opinion Found and Read
A. j. Steinman and W. U. Hensel Stricken
From the Rolls of Attorneys.
Some OF those. persons to whom Judge
Patterson had intimated his intention to
file his opinion in the case of Steinman and
Hensel "told it around" early this morn
ing and confirmed the INTELLIGENCER's
information that it would come off at 10
a. M. MIR. Hensel was in court at that
time and many of the members of the bar.
After Judge Livingston had finished his
opinions Judge Patterson asked Mr.. Hen
sci ifhis friend Mr.. Steinman was in town.
MIR. Hensel replied that he was not: he
understood that he had gone to Reading.
but it had been agreed between them that
anytime the court was ready to make a
deliverance in their case either being pres
ent should consent to the opinion being
read in the absence of the other.
Judge Patterson said he had a question
to ask.
Mr.. Hensel said he was not authorized
to answer any questions for Mr.. Steinman
Judge Patterson said that he wanted to
ask the respondents if they had anything
further to say to purge themselves.
MIR. Hensel said he would take the re-
sponsibility of saying for himself and Mr.,
Steinman that they had nothing further to
say in answer to the rule.
Judge Patterson then read his opinion,
| which, after recitinS the facts in the case.
ran as follows
1t will be seen there are t,co rules enter
| ell to which respectively answers have been
made: ono OH the respondents, that they
| answer for contempt, the other to show
misbehavior in their office of attorney.
We will not follow the interesting argu-
| ment of the learned counsel who appeared
for the respondents, by entering upon any
| extended discussion of the law upon which
the power of the courts in matters OF
contempt rests under our system of
| jurisprudence.
| Nor IS 1t &C all necessary that we should
| i'll this proceeding attempt to state all the
| limitations which exist upon the exercise
| of that power in that behalf-the case be-
| fore us not involving contempt in the pres
ence Of the court.
| 1t is manifest to the most casual reader
| that the several respondents do not deny
| the making or authorship OF the said pub
lished article, or i'll the least excuse tn m
| selves for the same, or disavOw even all in
! tentiOn by it to impute 4 want of integrity
| to the court.
| In other words, there is no disclaimer in
their several answers, of an intention to
charge the court in it's official capacity
| xIo,>
publication themselves plainly import, to
wit, cOrruptiOn-want of integrity in
the Office of judge. Every reader would
attach that meaning to it. We can see i'm
their answers no word or expression show
ing even an attempt to purge themselves
of the breach of official fidelity which
constitutes the gravamen of the rules
entered upon them.
The misconduct charged upon respond
ents nevertheless by the first rule it is mal,-
ifest is not a contempt of court in the pres
ence of the court, and therefore the rule
for contempt must be and is now dis
charged:
The single question remaining and in
cluded in the second rule, is, whether
these respondents are guilty Of such mis-
behavior in their Office of attorEey-such
breach of professional fdelity-tlIey, the
respondents, both being sworn officers OF
this court, as will render them justly and
legally liable to be fined, suspended or cx-
PEELED from the office of attorney.
| Whatever may be the answer, the Iues-
tion is one of great significance to the
court, to the respondents, and to the COM
munity, and it now devOlves on this court
| to consider and determine what Judgment
should be enforced, ifany, in the premises.
This unpleasant task is not of our seek
| ing, but was thrust upon us by these re-
spondents. Indeed the members of this
court feel they would be justly chargeabie
with gross intidelity to public duty if this
publication was entirely unnOticed. We
regret the occurrence, and the necessity Of
taking official notice of it.
The article itself is calculated to disturb
and prejudice the mind of the public re-
specting the impartial and just administra-
ton of distributive justice, and in that way
does great harm to the public, as we'll as
to this court. And the fact that the
authors are both attorneys, and officers of
the court dOubly intensiiies the pernicio,ls
tendency of the article. Their answers adj
NIT actual participation in the act of pub
lication.
The charge contained in the publicationl
and of which respondents acknowledge the
one. In direct and express terms it i'm
peaches the cialintegrity Of the court.
Its effect is greatly to injure if not to des-
troy the moral influence of the court and
to impair confidence in the administration
of public justice, and thereby infict grea t
harm on public society. And an officer o +
the court capable of estimating the conse-
quences of his act, publishing to the
world an article of the character admitted
to be totally unwarranted, involves degree
of moral turpitude that renders him unfit
to longer occupy the confidential relation
which the attorney necessarily sustains, to
the court and in itself constitutes gross
misbeIlavior in his Office. By such mis-
conduct he is self-disqualified to be longer
an officer Of the court, and his removal be-
comes a necessity.
We can find no statute provision in the
state, nor do we believe it was ever intend
ed there should be, to take away or abridge
the power of the court to protect itself
against one of its own officers, guilty Of a
delinquency Of that nature, and who insists
on the right, as in the present instance, to
repeat the grave offence.
His voluntary act, having wilfully dis
rupted the essential mutual confidence be.
tween himself and the court, his cOntinu-
ance in his office could only tend to OF
struct or embarrass the court in the dis
charge of it's official duties. In order to
dispatcl-indeed, in order to execute, it's
diverse duties properly, the word of the at
torney before the bench must be received
and accepted by the court in multitudinous
instances Rut that cannot he done when