Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-10-06
BENCH, BAR AND PRESS.
They Prefer Judge Sharswoods Law to
Judge PAttsrsOn1.


They Prefer Judge Sharswo0ds Law to
Judge PAttsrs0n's.
\. Y. Herald.
The latest attempt at muzz.ing the press
has ended as disastrously as all the others.
Two editors, who were also lawyers, hav-
ing expressedin in their journal some opinions
upon the conduct Of a Pennsylvania court,
were disbarred by the presiding justice :;
yesterday the chief justice ofthe state va
Gated the order.
CnquestjOnably Right
Philadelphia Evening Bulletin.
The decision, which is in accord with
one made by the late Chief Justice Gibson
in a case exactly similar many years ago,
is unquestionably right, and the repetition
will be a warning to all self-sufficient and
tyrannical judges of lower courts that may
presume to degrade professional man who
may have criticised him in the journals or
in any other public manner.
Sat Down Upon.
Pittsburgh Post.
Judge Patterson of Lancaster will scarce
ly NEEDLE with the Democratic editors of
the Lancaster INTELLIGENCEI in the time
to come. The supreme court sat down
upon him in more emphatic manner than
is customary with that distinguished body.
What 1t Established.
Pittsburgh Times.
According to the decision of the supreme
court, as stated in Judge Sharswood's
| opinion, lawyer who is also journalist
is not precluded from criticising the official
conduct of a judge. And even should the
lawyers criticism amount to a gross libel,
the judge may not at his discretion strike
l A.. 1>oVo -, 1s.,A -
attorneys. No doubt, in such a case, the
zen, and may appeal to the courts for re-
dress.
| No MuzzlinS the Press.
Pittsburgh Leader,
The decision of the supreme court in the
Steinman-Hensel case yesterday is found
| ed on common sense as we'll as law. To
say that because an editor happens to be a
lawyer he cannot cricise the actions of the
court in his paper without making himself
liable to expulsion from the bar seems ab-
surd. In the smaller cities and towns
very many of the newspaper publishers are
also practitioners at the bar, and could
they he dealt with as the proprietors of the
Lancaster INTELLIGENCER have been dealt
with at the hands of the judge Of the
courts of their county it would virtually
amount to the muzzling of a large portion
of the press so far as any criticisms Of the
judiciary is concerned. A newspaper is
responsible for its publications, and the
supreme court has wisely decided that that
is sufficient protection to any man who
feels himself to have suffered from any
publication, without going outside to in
jure the publisher in any private or pro-
fessional business in which he may be ell
gagged.
| A Judgment to Elicit Applause.
Easton Express.
| The decision of the supreme court, in
rcinstating to the list of the members of
the bar, Messrs. Steinman and Hensel, of
the Lancaster INTELIIGENCER, who had
been disbarred by Judge Patterson, will
receive the applause of the press and bar
of the state, and all fair-minded meD.
| Reasonable, just and Liberal.
Reading Eagle.
| The decision of Judge Patterson was
like the cdict of a cruel king, while the
opinion Of the supreme court is reasonable,
just and liberal law.
| The Star Chamber Abolished.
| Columbia Herald.
| Judge Patterson has been reversed in
the Steinman-Hensel case, and the result
will probably be that We will nevermore
have a star chamber proceeding in Lancas-
ter county, especially regarding lawyer
| editors.
1t was Expected.
York Daily.
| The decision is as was universally ex-
pected, excepting in one respect, that is !:
The irate judge should in som; way, have
been made to pay the costs. We can see
no reason why judge on the bench. MAX
ing false accusation or damaging
ruling, should not be as liable to pay costs
as any other man, under similar circum-
stances. In such q case a judge is no bet
ter than a mule driver and in this case he
should have been made to pay the costs
and not saddle them upon the Taxpayers.
We have yet to see the first respectable
journal in this or any other state, that has
not heartily condemed the arbitrary action
of Judge Patterson in the case refer
red to, and it is a pity that innocent peo-
pie are compelled to pay for his misdOings.
| A Terrified Pardon Board Organ.
Harrisburg Telegraph.
The decision is that judge feeling him.
self libeled by a newspaper publication
must seek the same remedy as district at
tOrney, a legislator, or 4 man in any public
| SIsltlOu-Iuc lcluCuy Wy luulCtIHcuI 1Oi
criminal libel or by suit for damages. A
judge cannot of his own motion cite an at
| tOrney who is also All editor into court and
disbar him for a lbelous publication on
tie court. This is the pith of the decision,
and, however much it may seem at vari
ance with received opinion, must be ac-
cepted as the law of the state. Its only
effect may be to restore Messrs. Steinman
and Hensel to the list of attorneys; but
there is danger it may result in licensing
unprincipled newspapers to attack our
courts whenever judicial opinion, however
| we'll based in law, is contrary to the opin-
ion of great masses Of our people.
Now for the District Attorney.
Lancaster New Era.
If this he the duty of the lawyer in re-
gard to bringing to the notice ofthe peo-
pie who elect the judges every intance of
what he believes affects their capacity or
integrity, for the reason that he has better
opportunities for observing and forming il
correct judgment of their fitness for the
position, is it not equally his duty to dc so
| in regard to that other Office which in the
administration of public justice is second
only to the Office Of Judge? We, Of course,
refer to the office of district attorney.
And we need go no further for IN illustra-
tion to enforce our meaning than the origin
of the very case which called forth the
opinion from which we quote. The court
| of Lancaster county, which ought to be
above suspicion of assuming "a position
too monstrous to be entertained for mo-
ment," is to-day humiliated and suffering
| reproach, simply because public justice