Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1889-07-23

h Bar Critlclslps the Bench.


Ftfty members Of the Berks county
oar--mor than one-half the whole num-
Der. and fully one-half In the weight of
'prUleeaional eminence and worth-have
Joined In vigorous public protest
against the candidacy of President Judge
jeremiah Hagenmann for third term.
For reasons that will readily suggest
themselves, some of the more conspicuous
members of the bar, such as George +.
Baer, Cyrus G. Derr and Daniel Ermen-
trout, are not among the signers of this
manifesto although IL may be inferred
with reasonable certainty that con-
siderable number of attorneys not sign
ing have refrained from no lack of SYM
pathy with the purpose TO displace the
judge. Such movement, SO frankly
md vigorously avowed, cannot fail to
have great significance. The discussion
which it precipitates upon the political
and professional circles of our neighbor-
ing county is great scandal. Judge
Hagenmsnn is badly libcllcd man or
the Judicial office I'm Berks has been
shamefully misused.
The Indictment which so large and rc-
spectacle an element of his bar frames
against this venerable parsonage, COM
prehends nearly everything except di-
rect corruption and incurable imbecility
with which Judge may he blamable.
He Is accused of evading responsibility,
of neglecting duty, of wilfully speeding
the cause Of one suitor and unworthily
delaying that of another, of prostituting
his office for political and personal ends,
and of displaying gross favoritism in the
dispensation of justice. What will be
the effect of proving or Of failing to
prove these charges remains to I've seen.
Nothing can safely be predicted as
the likely outcome Of the queer politics
Of Berks county. Here in Lancaster,
however, we have so long been accus-
TONED to see fools win aud knaves sue
ccseful at the primaries that we have no
reason to boast of any superior virtue ms
community. Judge Hagenmann has
iong been known-not greatly to his
crdit--over the state, as an astute poll
ticianj ) and he may now circumvent his
enemies and put them to confusion; in
which event, If he does not greatly alter
his disposition, the halfhundred lawyers
who have had the temerity to berate him
will be made to feel his wrath.
In any event their outspokenness on
this occasion IL forcible illustration of
the rights Of the members of the bar in
Pennsylvania to criticise the bench,
which were for the first time laid down
by the supreme court of Pennsylvania in
4 10
1880, "a Norris 220l. Quoting from
Chief Justice Sharswoods exposition Of
the law in that case the Reading attor-
neys say:
sour duty to address you upon this sub
,ect has been thus defined by our supreme
court: 1t is the right and duty of law
yer TO bring to the notice OF the people, who
elect the judges, every instance OF what he
No class in the community ought TO be
allowed freer scope in the expression or
publication of opinion as to the capacity,
fmpartiality OF integrity OF Judges than
members of the bar. They have the best
opportunities of observing and forming
: correct judgment. They are In constant
attendance at the courts. Hundreds of
those who are called on to vote never enter
Q court room, or II they do, II IL only nj in
tervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. In
this appeal to you to restore 10 Its proper
standard the dignity and efficiency of our
local Judiciary, we expressly disclaim any
personal, selfish or nalevolent motives,
but earnestly assure you that we are
actuated solely by n sense of that public re-
sponsibility In the premises, indicated 10y
the utterance of the tribunal above quoted,
and which, though we are reluctant To
assume, we have no disposition to evade. ("
OF course had the views of Judge
Patterson, and his action against the
editors of the INTELLIGENcER in the case
referred to, been affirmed by the higher
tribunal no such criticism as that now
directed against Judge Hagenman would
have been uttered or tolerated. The
authors of 1t could have been hauled be-
fore the court wherein they practiced
and stripped Of their profession without
redress or-before the act Of 1S78--with-
out even the right of an appeal and
rehearing. That act alone made
the appeal possible and the opin-
ion Of Judge Sharswood, which was
unanimously concurred in by his col
leagues, was the first judicial declaration
by the supreme court of the new rights
of lawyers since the judiciary became
elective and the liberty of the press was
defined by the bill of rights of the con-
stitution of 1874.
1t of course seems monstrous, even at
this short distance from that memorable
case, to haveever had il maintained that
attorneys-at-law, best of all qualified
to discuss the shortcomings of the judic-
iary and most interested TO expose
and cure them, should of all electors
be silenced. And yet that is exactly
what was contended for by the eminent
members of the profession who volun-
teered as ap,ici c,Tie for Judge Patter-
son. How disastrous to the freedom of
their profession, and how destructive of
the popular right to make selection of
judges an af1irmance of their position
would have been, can now be clearly
seen. As rule the members of the bar
are loath to proclaim in public the
opinions of the court which they are so
free to express in private but when the
emergency arises for them to "bripg
to the notice of the people who elect the
judges their demerits, If they have the
temerity to do it it is great blessing
that they have the privilege, under the
law.