The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-10-01
COUNTER ARGUMENT
IN THE SMITH CASE
Answer to the Disbarred Attorneys S
Paper Book Is Ready.
/ PAMPHLET Of FORTY PAGES
When Testimony Was Taken, the
Book Says, 1t Has Failed to Sus.
tain MIR. smiths Accusations in Any
Respect Whatsoever, and No Evi.
dencs Taken Warranted Even "a
Suspicion Of Them.

Attorneys f. c. Newcomb, s. b. Price,
and City Solicitor j. H. TOrrey, whom
the court appointed to prosecute the
rule against Cornelius Smith, when
that gentleman was called to answer
for writing two letters to Judge F. w.
Gunster impugning his integrity as
Judge and charging him with having
decided a case and recalled IL at the
instance OF corrupt influence. served a
copy of their answer to MI smith
paper book upon him yesterday.
MIR. Smith, Immediately, after dis
barrment brought the case to the su-
preme court, and The Tribune a few
weeks ago printed in substance the ar
guments of Mr.. Smith as to why the
upper court should reverse the finding
OF the court OF this county and restore
him to his position of attorney from
which he has been disbarred.
Mr.. Smiths case comes up next Mon
day before the court In session at Pitts
burg 1t is the first ON the list. The
argument contained in the paper book
OF the attorneys for the court fills a
pamphlet Of forty pages. The first fif-
teen pages are taken UP with coun-
ter statement of facts giving every de
tail OF the case since the day that
James Jennings was injured in the Lee
high Valley wreck at Mud Run on Wed
nesday, Oct. ~, 1883.
Starting out with this argument
they charge that Mr.. smith through
his privilege as an attorney has placed
upon the records of the court OF this
county criminal charges against the
judges. attorneys and officers. These
charges have been written out in mo-
tions. petitions, and declarations, and
al the disbarrment tIia! have been re-
peated orally.
CHARGES AGAINST HIM.
The charges upon which Mr. Smith
Was tried are that he wrote letters I,
Judge Gunstcr rejecting upon his
ufiiciul honesty and integrity: that the
letters tended to influence and preJu-
dice the decision of matter in tn.
hands of the court: and that his con
duct was u violation of his duty and
oath as an attorney. and in contempt
and derogation Of the administration
OF justice therein, and all attempted
Interference Herewith.
The sole inquiry with reference t,
Mr.. Smiths letters is. DO they con
stitute conduct unbecoming an attor-
ney?" This question must he deter
mined upon the result of the two-fulC
inquiry: What did he say; what di6
he mean? The argument then takes
up the manner in which Mr.. Smith at
tempted to explain what he meant il
the letters. and asserts that the ex
planation was ridiculous and that Mr.
Smith failed to give any reasonabl,
motive for writing the letters.
lie was well aware that Judge Gun.
ster knew of his attacks, and it Is ar.
gued that it was his intention to sug.
gest to the judge the possibility that il
he failed to satisfy Mr.. Smith. his acts
and motives would in like manner b.
| impusned: and that in view of the at.
tackS made upon bench and bar Judg.
Gunster would not dare to decide tn.
| case against him.
The argument goes on by saying thai
there is no conduct more dangerous t,
the administration Of justice than fol
| officers of the court tosquestion the in.
tegrity and honesty Of the judges anC
threaten them with charges of crimina
| offenses. A wanton attack on tn,
character of judge is serious injur,
to society.
THEORY OF THE LAW.
The theory of law is and always ha
been that persons guilty of crimes O.
misdemeanors should be publicly prose
cuted, and that to charge them in con
versation with others or by writing. il
OH the one hand q tort against the in
dividual and on the other a crim
against society. An attorney as an Off
Ger OF the court should be amenable t
this law. The court before whom h.
practices, having presented him a
worthy of confidence in all his profes
sional duties and relations should with
draw that Endorsement and cease +
hold him out to the public as worthy o
professional employment If his conduc
Is that which Is unbecoming any lay
man or citizen.
IL there were any truth in his charc
esi t!fN method taken was not the RENE
| dy which was provided by law, Th
iibelous matter was put on the recor
| with ho other motive than to unfairl
Influence the administratio Of justic,
II Is shocking to every sense of proprie
ty to contemplate the elimination
made IN all these proceedings. The
are outrageous, unjustifiable, and uu
warranted and. from time to time a
they have been made Mr.. Smith ha
been given opportunity to substantial
them, but lie has usually desired
change OF Ventae or has complained tina
tlHe CROUCH was not given to him (
produce the evidence. When testimon
has been taken It has failed to sustai
the accusations in any respect what
soever, and no evidence has been take
which warranted a suspicion of then
From this on the argument cites eS
tracts from opinions of the supren
court Of this and other states. M
Smith complained that the Judges {
this county being the prosecutors, the
ought not in all fairness to sit in judl
ment on the case. On this point Judp
Mercur is quoted thus: 1.-THE power {
the court to admit as an attorney at il
bar a person possessing the reuuisit
qualifications, and to remove him ther,
from when found unworthy, has bee
recognized for ages and cannot be que.
toned. In fact the power of remov;
for just cause is as necessary as tn:
of admission for due adminstratio
| Of law"