The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1880-11-18
Rights OF Judges. aud Editors.


freedom Of the press, than that Of Judge
Patterson against. .Steinman and Hensel,
has ever been decided, not only in this
Commonwealth, but in the country. The
decision is favorable 10 free and un-
ehackled journalism, "a n larger sense
than !has ever beca admitted by our
jurists: coming from the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania, being enunciated by so
learned il lawyer and 80 eminent a Judge
as Chief Justice Shnrswood, will give. it
weight and force for many generations to
come.
The defendants in this great lest case
are Andrew Jackson Stcnmnn aud Will
liam u. Hensel, publishers aud editors of
the Lancaster (pa.) Daily Mtciiigencer,
and both Of them lawyers, members of
the Lancaster bar. The eoiTence,consistcd
in uniavorably critcising the Associate
Law Judge of tie Common Pleas and
Quarter Sessions OF Lancaster County.
The Judge had acquitted one. Michael
Snyder, an active local politician of Ian.
caster, of an alleged violation of tho
liquor laws. After the case had been dc.
cided the MfcUiycnccr commented upon
it, saying that the acquittal was procured
by prostitution of thc machinery CT
justice TO serve the cxigcncies of the Re.
publican party as all The parties impli-
Gated, rs well ns the Judges, belong to
that party, the Court is unanimous. for
once, that it need take no cognizance of
the imposition praciiced upon it, and the
disgrace attaching to it."
For the publication Of this structure
Judge PATTERSON summoned the two
editor lawyers before him to answer for
contempt of court, and show cause why
they should not be disbarrcd-that is.
stricken from the roll of praclicing at.
torneys-for misbehavior rs lawyers, and
unfaithfnlness TO the Court of which they
were sworn officers. To this Messrs.
Steinman and Hensel made answer. that
Judge Patterson's proceeding was rregu-
lar; that there should have been n sworn
complaint, as IA foundation for the pro.
ceedings that they had not been guilty
oi any contempt; that they could not be
held responsible rs lawyers and officers of
the Court for acts which were done as
publishers and editors OF IL newspaper
that as citizens they would meet charge
of libel, leaving their guilt or innocence
to be decided by due course of law: and
that they were ready to stand trial in tho
capacity in which the alleged offence had
been committed, that of editors and pub.
lshers of newspaper. Judge Patterson
oyerruled these pleas and disbarred
lAsssess7-. S.a;n;nai; and HoHsc,. Unae-
an A Of Assembly, passed in 1879, they
appeaied to the Supreme Court of Penn
sylvania. and decision in the case was
given by Chief Justice Sharswood, Mt
Pittsburg, on Monday, October f. His
Honor took broad ground against ths
arbitrary action OF Judge Patterson. He
not only restored Messrs. Steinman and
Hensel to their places Mt the bar of Lam
caster, but he used such unmistakable
language as the following:
To say that an attorney can only act or
speak on this subject leases before a
CourD under liability to be called to ac-
count and to be deprived of his profession
and means of livelihood, by tho very
Judge or Judges whom ho may consider
it his duty to attack or expose, is posi-.
tion too monstrous to be entertained for n
moment under our present system.
Justice Sharswood also holds that, even
if attorneys are convicted by Jury of
libeling a Judge, the disbarring of him
would still remain an open question.
There are technicalitics in this masterly
and equitable decision; it goes to the
heart of the fncts of case that is SAM
pie of many, in which Judges of Courts,
where newspapers were concerned, AFRO.
gated to themselves dictatorial powers,
disregarding all forms of law in what
they were pleased to call The vindication
of the Bench. Judges are falliblc, just
rs other mortals are; just as liable to
err; just as prone to be governed by par
tizan zeal. If Judge is wronged by O
newspaper he has his remedy at law, just
as ether citizens have; he should receive
no less, he should ask no more; and he
is not likely to do the latter in the face
Of the decision of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania in Stcinman and Hensel
vs. Patterson.