Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-06-21
Aancaster flltelliqenrer.
WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 2l, 1882
The Bench and Bar.

The Bench and Bar.
The exchange of compliments which
we elsewhere print between the court
and one of its auditors, is interesting
reading. The auditors remarks have
not found a place upon the court records,
although embodied in his report
distributing the balance of an estate,
which was recorded after being emas-
culated to suit the views of the clerk of
the court. How this officer came to think
that he had right to record a part and
reject a part Of a court paper we do not
understand, and perhaps it will be well
for the judges to inquire. We believe
that it is made the duty of the court,
under the act of 1889, to examine their
records as often as their officers are
changed, and as much oftener as they
consider necessary, to see that they are
properly kept, and to order any deficien-
cy in them to he supplied. In this case
all of the auditors report. of course,
should have been recorded, or at least
none of it could be lawfully omitted by
the clerk of his own motion. His ex-
cuse that he was not paid for the re-
cording may have been good if he had
refused to record any part of the report;
but he certainly cannot make a false
record by recording part and omitting
part. Possibly the court may consider
it to he within its power to suppress
such part of an auditors report as it
considers impertinent or superduous !;
but no order of the court is presented as
the sanction of his conduct by the dep
uty clerk of the orphans court, and we
do not understand that he has any. The
judges seem to he called upon to exam
inc into the matter from proper regard
for their prerogative and for the integ-
rity of their records.
Meanwhile We supply, SO far as We can,
the neglect of the clerk by publishing
the unrecorded portion Of the auditors
report, and accompanying it with the
remarks of the judge which led to his
response. 1t must be considered a case
of very plain speaking between bench
and bar, the free speech of the auditor
being based upon yet freer speech of the
judge. 1t was undoubtedly proper in
the Judge to pronounce the auditors
charge for his services to be ex-
Orbitant if he thought so; but it
is doubtful, indeed, if he was at
liberty to impugn his motives by saying
that if the moneys distributed had been
his own he would have less highly valued
his services, and again, by intimating
that he had allowed excessive fees to
counsel 4" as paving the way to his own
exorbitant fee." The Judge should have
teen sure of his ground before venturing
on such an intimation against an at
torney, especially one who has always
born so honorable repute as has Mr..
Shade. The provocation to the auditor to
resent this severe imputation upon his
honor was great. His declaration that
all the parties interested in the distribu-
tion agreed to his charge as a fair one
seems to sufficiently defend it though
some of them seem afterward to have
reconsidered the matter and to have OBJ.
jected to it. If this was done in cham
bers and without notice to him after the
adjournment of court he had right to
complain of it but here in his turn he
should have been sure of his ground be-
fore venturing on that suggestion. The
lesson of this warfare of words between
Judge and attorney, is one to the bench ;
that it should he careful to treat the bar
respectfully if it would always be Sc
treated itself. The bench has not license
to scOld and insult the bar; it is not thus
its dignity is successfully maintained.