Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-04-23

NattAooltk EStIEls14EIl[EC.
EVENING, APRIL %, 1891.
Not 0UnanfnouS-FOr Once"
The Philadelphia Times is advised
from Lancaster that all of the members
of the Lancaster bar but three have
signed paper urging Judge Livingston
to permit them to support him for re-
election, and that two of the three law
yers who refused their signatures were
the editors of the INTELLIGEECER. It is
true that paper Of the purport men
toned was presented for our signatures
and failed to receive them. We had no
hesitation at all in declining to give
them. We do not consider Judge Liv-
ingston 8 qualifications for the judicial
position SO transcendent as to warrant
us in pledging ourselves to support him
in advance Of the naming of the Demo-
cratic candidate for his position.
II respectable lawyer and man
should be nominated on the Democratic
ticket we should support him, even
though the Republican candidate was a
much more capable judge than Judge
Livingston has shown himself to be. We
could not have signed the paper lawyer
Ellmaker prepared and sent around for
the approval Of his fellow lawyers,
phrased as it was, without intending to
vote for the man that we thus requested
to afford us an opportunity to do 50. We
do not understand how the Democratic
lawyers who signed the paper can refuse
their votes to Judge Livingston and
preserve their self-respect. We can
hardly believe that all the Democratic
lawyers who signed the paper intend to
vote for the man to whom they declare
that they "desire that you should be
your own successor" and ask " will you
allow us to present your name to the
voters Of this county as candidate fol
reelection" We do not understand
why any Democratic lawyer should wish
Judge Livingston to he his own success
sor, before the Democratic convention
has selected his competitor. 1t is posi-
ble that there may be one or two so.
called Democratic lawyers who are will.
ing to accept Judge Livingston in pre-.
ference to any Democrat who can be
named but we do not believe that
there are many more. Our party friends
at the bar have signed this paper through
a weakness of which they have reason
We think, to be very much ashamed
and some 0f these have so confessed te
us.
The unanimous approval which thi.
paper shows of Judge LivingstOn's ju-
dicial course does not represent the SEN
timent Of the members of the bar
even on the Republican side, and the
fact is very disgracefult to it, undoubtedly
The favor of the judge is, of course, a
v-ry important thing for a lawyer te
have, but it is not SO important to him
as his manhood. In explaining his sig
nature to this paper, one lawyer declared
that it was matter Of bread and butter
to him; and it is this ignoble sentiment
which proves so powerful at this bar to
bring the lawyers to the feet of the
judges. They fear to have it 60 Out
among the people that they are not in
favor with the bench, lest they may lose
their clients through apprehension of the
effect Of judicial prejudice against the
lawyer.
The unanimity with which this paper
of recommendation has been signed is in
fact discreditable both to Judge Living
stOn and the bar. 1t shows that the
lawyers do not consider that he is an un-
prejudiced judge who performs his duties
without fear, favor or Affection .
They know that he is not a broad minded
impartial man, whose personal feelings
will never affect the discharge of his
official functions. He very decidedly is
not such man. In many respects he
has been good judge ; in others he has
been Indifferent; and in yet others de.
cidedly bad. He has certainly not
been SO excellent a Judge as to
have won the universal approval
of the bar and to have earned
their honest signatures to the
paper they have presented to him.
Our objection to signing it was by no
means only political. We could not
honestly say of Judge Livingston's judi
cial course what this paper said. His
acqulescence in our disbarment, alone,
marked him as one who either did not
have sound convictions or did not have
the courage Of them. If he believed
Judge Patterson was wrong he made a
mean and cowardly surrender to him :;
and if he thought him right the decision
of the supreme court shows that such
rank stupidity units him to he Judge
THE Philadelphia merchants are ap-
pealing to the Legislature to pass an in
solvent traders bill, voiding judgments
not placed on record, and voiding a
judgment obtained by collusion with a
debtor with view to preference. And
they invite us to correct &" an erroneous
concerning this bill, viz. :
I" That it is wholly in the interest of the
city merchant or trader" We are not
sufficiently familiar with the provisions
and tenor of this particular bill to ex-
press an opinion upon it generally, but
we can endorse the latter suggestion,
that legislation to protect city merchants
from the fraud and insolvency of their