Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-03-02
AN IMPORTANT AND INTERESTIN
QUESTION"

QUESTION:
Discussed by an Able and Eminent Au-
Albany n. Y. Law Journal.
The proceeding of Judge Patterson
against Mcssrs. Steinman and Hensel, in
Pennsylvania, involves all important and ill.,
tercsting question. The judge is county
Judge of Lancaster. The other gentlemen
are attorneys of his court and editors OF the
Lancaster 1NTELLIGENCER. AS such edi-
tors the latter published a statement tO the
effect that the machinery OF the court had
been prostituted to serve tho exiyen-
cies Of the Republican party, and that
the judge had been prevented by his parti
san feeling from resenting the imposition
upon his court i'll certain case, and the
disgrace attendant upon it. ThereupOn
the judge ordered the editors to show
cause why they should not be disbarred.
The editors have answered denying the
right of the court to disbar them for this
act done by them as editors and not as at
torneys. 1t may we'll be that the editors have
rendered themselves liable to punishment
for contempt, on the ground that the pub
lication was calculated to bring the court
into disrespect, and impede the admins
tration of justice. But it seems quite
doubtful whether the publication will
warrant the court in disbarring the Offend
ing editors. The courts make a distinc-
tiOn between acts and conduct as an attor-
ney and Sc as person. These editors
made this publication as editors and not
torney las been disbarred for such
a want of integrity, displayed in
his conduct other than as an attorney, as
shows him to lie an unsafe and unfit per-
son to practice law, But we believe the
courts have never gone further than this.
Dickens case, G7 Penn. St. 1863; s. c., 5
Am. Rep. 420, illustrates the distinction,
There the court refused to disbar the attor-
Dey because he participated in pretended
gift enterprise, but did disbar him because
he conspired to get an opposing attorney
drunk in order to get an advantage of him
on trial. So in Baker q. Commonwealth, 10
Bush, 592, an attorney was disbarred for
altering letter written by a judge to
the clerk. On the other hand, in the
case of Er parte, Dow. P. r. 40, the
court refused to strike off an attorney
against whom verdict for
gross libel had been obtained.
Lord Lyndhurst saying: ''The court
will not strike an alto 'ney from the
roll unless for some misconduct in his busi-
ness as attorney, or where criminal pro-
ceedings have been taken against him."
In many cases opprobriOus and disrespect-
full language concerning jugs has been
held not even to be contempt, but this is
generally, we believe, because Of the limi-
tations OF statutes defining contempt. But
however the law may stand, there
can be little question that the judge
has made a mistake of policy. Unless
it eau be shown that such
publication is made with improper motives
a judge is wrong to resent it. Judge West
brook, for example, would become ridicu-
lOus if he should hale before him the
Times reporter. We suspect that Judge
Patterson has by this time realized the
truth Of Mr.. Weller's observation, that
magistrates commit themselves oftener
than they commit anybody else.