Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-04-03
sert exemption from all responsibility
whatever. In that their folly was equalled

sert exemption from all responsibilit
whatever. In that their folly was equalle
only by their criminality.
They claim that exemption in their ar
swers set forth, because the publication
made was made by them solely in the ca
pacity of editors and publishers of news
paper, and made not in the presence of til
court, and therefore in no manner involve
their professional oath as attorneys.
Their answer also sets forth that the
wrote and published the article while act
ing in good faith, and for the public good
etc. In other words, they designed to sa
that they wrote and published in this in
stance from the enthusiasm Of virtue ant
not from motives of ambition, praise 0
notOriety.
Such a sworn statement as to the lega
and moral effects of the oath governin,
members of the bar is certainly remark
able. We consider integrity, and especial
ly integrity to the obligations of his Off
cial oath, as well as learning, is most es
sential to the character of an attorney
An attorney-at-law Of the largest expert
ence, the loftiest talents and most unex
ceptionable character when he seeks
new forum to conduct trial, is obligated
to take the prescribed oath for attorneys
before he is permitted to be heard in tina
court in behalf of his client.
This required oath, or one similar il
spirit is as ancient as the common law it
sell, and to punish for an open violation O
that obligation has always been held as in
cidental to grant of judicial power
Hence, can it he seriously urged that that
answer can be accepted to 60 in excuse OF
this misbchaviOr in Office by these re
spondents? That because an attornsy-at
law is at the same time an editor of a
public paper, that the latter calling and
engaging in the duties of it emancipates
him from all the obligations his oath as al
attorney implies? That while within the
four walls of the court chamber that obi.
cation is binding. but the moment he steps
without its wall the obligation is cancelled
the legal and moral obligation no longer
exists!
The utterance itself of the proposition
shows its wickedncss and its folly. We
can only entertain feelings of depreciation
and sadness for any one, much more for an
.tttorney-at-law, who can utter such sen-
timcnt.
The assumed calling of editors is voluu-
tary on their part, but does it sink the
office and obligations of attorneys, who
have never asked to be stricken from the
roll of attorneys, but who are in daily
practice before the court? We think not
-manifestly not.
OF course, an editor or publisher not al
officer OF the court could not violate this
official oath-would not by reason OF any
publication whatsoever be responsible to
the court in the proceeding for contempt,
but only to the law in an action or prose
cutiOn in the courts.
That distinguished jurist, G. J. Gibson,
in the Austin case. Rawle, 202, says :
- An attOrney-at-law is an officer of the
court and individuals of the class may,
and sometimes do, forfeit their profession
al franchise 10y abusing it and power to
exact the forfeiture must be lodged some
where, and such power is Indispensable to
protect the court, the administration OF
justice and themselves"
These respondents are attorneys of this
court, and as such had solemnly taken the
obligation "that they would behave them
gcIves in their Office of attorney within the
court according to the best of their learn
ing and ability. and with all good fidelity as
we'll toi the court as to the client" They
are also required to be persons of good
I'll AAiu cuotiSO
saws in the Mclaughlin case, 5 w. & s.,
212 * And il he (the attorney violates
tins obligation. he is liable to suspension
removal from Office, or to such other pen
:lties Us have hitherto been allowed in
such eases by the laws of the common,
wealth.
IL then, it is only with the official con,
duet of these respondents that the court
.,,, in, t!oSo nrnnnrlv tal 10 onr
,,izance ol. is it not imperative to notice
the false code of morals implied in theil
answers respecting the obligatory charac
ter OF their official oath, as we'll as the
overt act compl aimed of?
We have already remarked Oh the plea
of their entire release from obligation as
attorneys and officers of this court. The
obliquity Of the moral sense thereby indi-
Gated, if not sufficient in itself, would Ger.
tainly make up a large element of charac
ter to constitute official misconduct and
untitness for the Office of attorney.
The power of the court to punish for Off
ciai misconduct. as above shown, is well
established by authority. What, we will
ask, is the character of the publication
We have shown its pernicious tendency.
which is not disputed by the answers filed
The respondents nowhere by their answers
aliege its truthfulness. They nowhere
deny its tendency to abuse public credulity
and to intlict deep injury upon the integ-
rity of the court and its moral influence.
What is the logical inference to be drawn
from the respondents sworn answers? Is
it other than that they are privileged to
make any publication concerning the court,
and concerning proceedings in the court,
however false, even to assail its integrity,
and to excite popular passion concerning
cases determined therein, whether just or
unjust
And in the absence of any disclaimer
in their answers of any intention to embar-
lass the administration of justice, is it
not fair to assume that the intention of re-
spundents was to impair the courts official
Integrity and influence? The language of
the article, taken with the answers, under
oath. will admit of no other Interpretation
no other than the intention to charge the
court with partisan action in the cases re-
ferred to. and, of course, with want Of
official integrity. There is no disavOwal Of
it natural meaning or of 4 bad intent, and
every man must be presumed to intend the
natural ard necessary consequences of his
own deliberate acts and when, as in this
instance, an opportunity was offered to
respondents to make disavowal either rs
to the motive that influenced them in the
publication, and as to its meaning, and
they declined to do either, it constitutes a
deliberate re-aflirmation of the original az
ticle. with all it's inherent consequences
and meaning. The motive, therefore, was
an impure one, and the publication Il fla
grant breach of official fidelity to the court.
The respondents seek another excuse, by
to have made the publication
for the "public good" If there were
,yrnnrs real nr imaminarY permitted in