Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-06-23
Aancaster flltelliQenrcr.
judicial Fallacy.

judicial Fallacy.
Judge Livingston expresses to the re-
porter for the INTELLIGENCER belief
that it is not sOlicitous to tell the truth
and that particularly when he is con-
cerned it takes especial pains to do him
injustice; but the judge was not happy
in selecting our publications in the mat
ter of the Coyle estate as furnishing
foundation for his statement. In that, as
will be noted from the judges admis-
sious, we really did him favor in Civ
ing him the first information he says he
had of the remarks made by the auditor.
The auditors second report was filed in
the usual course without being brought
to the attention of the court, and if we
had not published it Judge Livingston
not only would. not have known what
Mr.. Shade had said to him, but he would
also have been ignorant of the very eX
traordinary liberty that had been taken
with a court paper by its clerk in omit
ting to record part of it. If the judge
had known of Mr.. Shades personal re-
marks when the report was presented he
says he would have ordered them to be
stricken from the record. This is what
we suggested he would have been likely
to do; but whatever may have been his
authority in this regard, it is very clear
that the clerk of the court possessed no
such power and it would seem that his
assumption of it requires it to be taken
notice of by the court to the enl that he
may be taught his duty and be prevented
hereafter from making like false records.
1t appears to us that we are entitled
to the gratitude of the court for calling
its attention to this gross NUT 'lation OF
its records and affcrding it an oppor-
tunity to protect their integrity : a duty
which, as we suggested, is IMPOSED upon
it by the law. OF course We cHU!d have
made no misstatement in publishing
what appears upon the papers of the
court, and we in no way did an injus-
tice to Judge LiI ;!lsstra. Of which he
could complain. il putting upon the
clerk Of the court the responsibility for
its mutilated record and in calling upon
the court: to haul him over the Goals
for nsurping its authority. - that
as we have said, Judge Livingston
was uot happy in selecting this case as
affording evidence of our hostility to the
truth and to him. The judge soi.atimes
goes wrong and we tell him Of it. This
time it was his clerks misconduct that
we communicated to him. Asto Auditor
Shades assault upon HIN, of course We
are not responsible for tn :. We did i'll
innate our opinion that the judge had
need to be very sure Of his ground be,
fore charging an auditor with being ac
tuated by improper motives; just as
now we beg to suggest to the judge thai
he ought to be very sure Of his facts be-
fore charging the IIGENcEE Will
untruthfulness and unfairness. W.
really fear that the judge is somewhat
prone to rashness in the use of language
1t is an especially unfortunate tendency
in a Judge, who is expected to be :
model of decorum, and even more than {
newspaper editor to be an expert in thu
matter of judiciously holding his tongue
Our reporter and the judge seemed tt
have agreed, in their interview, that we
had a grievance against this court.
Doubtless they referred to the fact that
the judges had disbarred the editors OF
the INTELLIGENCER in which matter
as their action was reversed by the su-
preme court, we consider it settled tha,
they were wrong, where they should b.
all means have been right, to have pre-
served a proper repute for judicial wis
dom and fairness. That was Il seriou:
mistake {; but as it did not hurt us W.
have freely forgiven it and only ask tha
they go and sin no more. Let them con
slider we'll before they act and thinl
twice before they speak, and they W il
not so often have occasion to think thai
the newspapers are fond of holding then
up to public contempt.