Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-01-21
Hancaster fntelligeilrer.
EVENING, JAN. 21, 1890.
Called Into Court.

Called Into Court.
Judge Patterson has taken heretofore
unheard-o step in summOning the edi-
tors Of the INTELLIGENCER to answer,
in their capacity as members of the bar,
for their editorial utterances. The i'm
putation made by the INTELLIGENCER
upon the court, which Judge Patterson
undertakes to resent in this extraordi-
nary manner, was that their partisan
feeling prevented the judges from MOTTO
ing an imposition put upon it and dis
grace attached to it by the attorneys in
the Snyder case. To suggest that a
Judge is affected by his party spirit in the
discharge of his duties is certainly
charging him with wrong; and
to say that he is restrained
by such partisanship from moving
an inquiry into confessed and notorious
abuse of the processes of his court by at
torneys of his own party is likewise to
charge him with wrong. The editors OF
the INTELLIGENCER,h however, have not
been able to see, in the cOntentment with
which the court has regarded the confess
sion of District Attorney Eshleman and
his assistant in the Snyder case, MIR.
Brown, that political considerations Sc
cured the discharge of Snyder, any way
to avoid the conclusion that political
considerations secured likewise this
calmness of the court under its treat
ment.
1t is not that the court, OF anyway
Judge Patterson's part of it, cannot be
excited-or at least.aroused to put Oh the
appearance of it-by abuse. The judge
is ready enough to break lance with the
editors of the INTELLIGENCER in what
he assumes to be an attack upon his
court, although he is not named as the
delinquent Judge, and although we know,
from his own assurance to us in this
office, that he disclaimS all responsibility
for the failure of the court to call to ac-
count the prosecuting attorneys in the
Snyder case and throws the whole
of it upon his brother, Judge Living
ston, who tried the case and
upon whom, it seemed to Judge
Patterson, it devOlved to init
ate any movement to unveil the wrong
that had been done by the common
wealth's counsel. We cOncurred with
Judge Patterson that Judge Livingston
~ was mainly responsible for the failure to
inquire into the conduct of these attOr-
neys; and, in view of the facts, we have
some reason for aStOnishment that
Judge Patterson should now undertake
to assume to himself structures made by
us upon the court for its nom
action. We have freely commented here
tofore upon this asserted delinquency,
and so have our contemporaries and
Judge Patterson has been silent while he
thought that the weight of the blow was
falling upon Judge Livingston.
But we rejoice that he has at last
awakened to the fact that it is his duty
to protect the fair repute of the court of
which he happens to be a member. We
entirely sympathize with his feeling that
it should not be unjustly assailed, and
we shall he very glad if he can show that
the INTELLIGENCER has thus assailed
it, and we will be quite content to leave
the bar if he can demonstrate the fact to
his fellOw-citiZenS, who are his Judges
and ours. But he will not demonstrate
it simply 10y seeking to use the power
which he thinks he has of removing us
from the bar for contempt of court.
He must show that our suspicion that
the court has permitted it's hands to be
tied by political considerations is wholly
unfOundcd.
OF course We deny that the court has
any power over us as editors because of
our capacity as attorneys, and we have
reason to think that Judge Livingston is
of this opinion. He has in fact excused
the court s failure to haul Eshleman and
Brown over the Goals by the declaration
that it was not the duty of the court to
initiate any action against them, but
that it would be ready to lay its hand
upon them if anyone should bring them
before it by prosecution. If the judge
is thus reluctant to take notice of the
conduct of attorneys Immediately before
his bar, of course he will not think of
darting his spear against them when, as
editors, they are talking to the public.
Judge Patterson is making this little
tilt alone and for purpose which time
will reveal. He cannot expect to take any,
thing from us by his motion against us,
but there may nevertheless he balm in
it for him and hurt for somebody. In
deed we are satisfied that somebody is
going to he hurt before the battle is over.
And the brief list of killed and wounded
will be interesting to the victims and
their political relatives.
A David Come to Judgment.
Lawyers who heard the colloquy be-
fwaan Tudpa Patterson and tha editors