Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-04-27
1anrasttr f1ltellige1lcrr.
TUESDAY EVENING. APRIL ~, 1890.
Judicial Friendship.

of the local machinery of justice seems
not to have been well founded in this
particular matter, since it turns out that
the case was postponed at the instance
of his particular friends of the prosecu-
ton, who did not like the complexion of
the last juror drawn and who were un-
willing to 60 to trial on the last day of
the week. Another complaint of the
New Era, that the Dennis case had been
postponed to the Raymond, has its fire
drawn out of it by the revelation
that this, too, was done at the
instance of it's friends and for
the reasons that the prosecution
thought that the Raymond case was the
strongest one to 60 to trial on.
1t appears that District Attorney ESh-
leman has not been responsible for the
postponement of these trials, but that he
has accommodated himself to the views
of the special counsel for the prosecu-
tion. 1t also appears that the court has
not been in any way to blame. The Ner
Era falls back in the best order it can
command from its unfounded allegations,
and does some pretty writing about the
delight which the journalist has when he
can applaud the temple of justice, and
the pain he feels when he discovers any
wrong within its precincts. Just so; we
subscribe to the sentiment. If it is
these noble ideas, expressed a day after
the fair, which relieve Publisher Warfel
from the necessity of responding to a rule
to disbar, we have to regret that the court
is unaware how fully we subscribe to
them. If it had known how reluct-
antly we criticise it, we are sure
it would have been as easy on
us as it inclines to be on Pub
Usher Warfel. We did not get
chance to tell it, because we were not
wrong shipped on our facts, and were not
therefore at liberty to take back on Mon
day what We said on Saturday. 1t seems
to be valuable privilege sometimes to
60 off at half-cock, and on a false basis
to get straight again you only need to
craw-fsh; and the lawyer who is an
editor saves his skin.
But, nevertheless, Publisher Warfel is
lucky to get out of this scrape. Evident
ly the court is not yindictive, otherwise
it might justly hold that lawyer who
is an editor should he sure of his facts
before he goes ahead to abuse the court.
1t is valuable quality in lawyer as we'll
as in an editor; and it may be strongly
argued that man who has to take back
to-day what he said yesterday, is not a
safe adviser and is not fit to be other peo-
pies attorney Publisher Warfel has
well established reputation for taking
things back. lie took back that other
little statement about the Snyder
boys, ETC., at the point of the bayonet,
and in the face of jury. This time he
was moved to repentance by the just
anger of an outraged court, and he came
down quickly.
He was right to come down, for he
was great offender. His paper ought
to have told the truth. And especially
ought it have been careful in its state
ments about case still pending in the
court. Our little scrimmage with the
bench comes from criticism upon case
already decided, and our counsel tell us
that this is a strong point in justification
of our comment. Publisher Warfel may
thank his stars that his newspapers wild
talk, about the defendants in pending
case boasting that they had the court
under their thumb and that they would
never be tried, and his denunciation of
the court for securing the settlement of
his libel suit, has not secured him the
privilege of answering a rule to show
cause why he should not be disbarred.
Judge Livingston is understood to main-
tain that it was the quintessence of
meanness in the Ne,c Era to assail him
for his efforts to settle it's libel suit. We
understand from the Examiner that it
was Judge Livingston who lent his
friendly Offices to the two parties to this
affair to secure the ending of the GRIM
inal suit. The Examiner thinks it was
perfectly right for the presiding judge,
not presiding at the trial, to intervene
between the commonwealth and the de-
PENDANTS and urge settlement of the
There is abundant room
for entertaining the opposite view and
that it was not proper for a
judge thus to step in between the state
and accused criminals. 1t may be that |
the judges motives were good. No doubt
he was properly distressed at the quarrel
among his friends in the Republican
family. They were his friends on both
sides; and he has considerable justifica-
tion for feeling aggrieved that he is now
50 previously assailed for his interfer-
ence by one of the friends whose graft
tude he has fondly thought he had earn
ed. Evidently his good offices have not
been appreciated, but he shows how good
4 Christian he is by not turning his back
On the friend who had injured him and by
being still willing to forgive his offences
so elegant an opportunity is
offered him for revenge under the view
ne has taken of his judicial power in call
ng attorneys to account for language
spoken or words written outside the
,ourt. Would that the judges Christian
charity had held out to forgive us, miser-
lble sinners.