The record-union., 1895-01-08

the cause with which he is charged The
parts of the brief to which we have alluded
are, therefore, contemptuous and unbearable,
ana entirely unwarranted under any claim of
free speech. We appreciate the right of coun-
sci to fully argue their cases. to comment on
witnesses, whoever they may be- and to pre-
sent views and press arguments, within any
reasonable bounds OF propriety. There need
be no difficulty in this court on that subject
IL would be hard, no doubt, to designate h
line that would in all cases properly divide
free speech from license. But there is no
trouble in the case at bar on that score,
for the conduct of the respondent is,
beyond doubt, entirely on the side :, OF OF
that an attorney has been elected q JUS
tice of tins court does not shield him
from any fair criticism of his conduct when
an attorney; but when there is such unwar-
rantable language as that used by respondent,
it is manifest that it was used because the
person assailed is the Justice of this coart and
with intent to commit q contempt of this court.
AS respondent has in the same connection as
sailed not only all the members of this court,
and the two Superior Judges above referred
10, but also certain reputable lawyers who
were at one time associated with him in the
litigation, and special. administrator who
was appointed at his own instance, and out
of his own office, charity might possibly sug-
gest that he is the victim of abnormal suspi-
cion and distrust. But no such defense is
made: and, moreover, his brief and argu-
ment show a bright intellect and clear
mind. His conduct therefore exhibits only
sheer intent TO be maiciously coptem ptuous.
With respect to the other members OF the
court the language of the brief is not only
generally cOntemp ptuouS, but ontainS ui-
rect attempt to influence them by threats of
injury unless they shall adopt his views of
the case. He says in his brief: "And let this
be borne in mind by every Justice who takes
part in the decision. You were not any more
than l, either directly or indirectly, party
to the secret transactions of September 6,
1890, and we that have free souls it touches
us not. 1t will never be in any, even the
slightest degree, your act, your child, nor will
you in even the slightest degree be respon-
sible for it, unless you adopt it as your own.
Though it is a lure, prepared 10 be held out
TO you as a lure, it touches younot unless you
accept it," And again, having said that 1t is
not enough for courts to be pure, but that
there must be "the fullest confidence in their
purity he says: "But il this recent transac-
tion of September 6, 1890, is not declared
illegal and void upon the rules and principles
declared i'll Egerton VS.. Earl BrownloW, then
all to whom knowledge OF the case may come
will no longer merely suspect even think
that the courts may be corrupted: they will
know 1t; they may point TO the decision here
as tuli proof 1t; Tor 1t will be established that
such practices are permissi BILE, they sure 10
have their effect" This is a palpa0le attempt
to influence decision of this court by base
appeals to the supposed timidity of its US
tlceS; and made too py an officer of the court.
1t Is lntoerable. 1t cannot be suffered by any
occupant OF the bench who has q Just sense OF
his duty TO the people TO preserve the due dig
nifty OF their courts and the free course of JUS
tice. An attempt to influence Judge through
then such an attempt against his reputation.
A high-sprited man might have perfect
physical courage, and yet might possibly
despite all his efforts against 1t, be, to some
extent lnsensibly affected by dread OF tue
loss OF his reputation ana good name. Neither
attempt can be for moment countenanced
without manifest injury to the cause of JUS
tice. When people come into courts as Iti-
Sants they have the right to eX-
pect the best judgments of their
Judges, uninfuenced except by legitimate
arguments made openly before them by coun-
sell Ihey must expect those errors which
Will sometimes inevitably be committed by
minds which are not infalible; but they
saould be able To teel sure tnat the Impartial
lty of the court will not disturbed by any
influence OF lear or favor And clearly moth
ing tends more to disturb that impartiality
than menace that the decision of cause a
certain way will destroy, or greatly lnlure,
the good name of the Judge VINO shall make
II. And when the punishment OF sucn an
of1ense is Clearly within the jurisdiction OF
the court, as IN the case of one OF its officers il
must impose the penalty or neglect its i'm
peratlye duty. We exceedingly regret the
necessity OF this proceeding. IL would have
been much more agreeable Tor us 10 have de-
voted the time given to its hearing to other
business; bat to have overlooked it would