The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-06-02
MR.. SMITH DISBARRED

seem to me to be either just or fair for
you TO turn the case over to another judge.
Respectfully y;,,, yours;
RULE ENTERED ON HIM.
on March %, 1896, we caused n rule to be
entered upon the respondent 10 show
cause why he should not be removed
from the Office Of attorney of this court,
and his name stricken from the roles
thereof on the ground
l. That the said letters reflected upon
the official honesty and integrity OF Hen.
=. W. Gunster, one OF the judges or this
court.
.. That they tried to influence and pre-
judice the disposition of the said rule
pending in the hands of said judges.
5. That the action of the said Cornelius
Smith was in violation of his duty and
oath as an attorney of this court, and in
contempt and derosation Of the aiininls-
tratOn of justice therein, and an attempt-
ed interference Herewith"
AT the hearing evidence was taken
and the respondent was heard in his
own behalf personally and by counsel,
the rule being represented by three
members of the bar, appointed by the
court. On the final argument of the rule
the remarks Of the respondent In open
court being of such an extraordinary
character we directed that these re-
marks be made a part of the record of
the case. informing the respondent at
the time that the Judgment of the court
would be based upon the whole record
before US
1.-The record of the case is now before
us and we have the unpleasant duty
to perform Of passing judgment upon
the professional conduct of q member Of
our bar.
AT the outset we may say that the
circumstances must be exceptional
which would justify an attorney in
writing q letter of any kind to a Judge
In reference to case pending In his
hands and awaiting disposition The
most innocent letter that could be writ
ten would border closely upon the line
of unprofessional conduct, because there
must of necessity be in the mind Of the
writer some purpose to influence the
judge in some way or another In con-
nectiOn with the case. If such a pur-
pose Is disclosed or can be ascertained
from any fact or circumstance, the at
torney writing the letter is guilty Of un-
professional conduct, and Is unfaithful
to the court.
FIRST PASSED OVER.
Referring to the two letters written
ed over with the comment that the writ
ing Of 1t was unnecessary because the
writer had already been personally as
sured Of the mistake in regard to the
handing down of the opinion. Its main
relevancy in the present inqiry Is that
1t contains the admission on the part of
the respondent that he had been misin-
formed.
Thus it appears that on Dec. 81, 1895.
the mistake had been explained to the
satisfaction of the respondent and the
misunderstanding was apparently at
an end.
More than two months had elapsed,
the case being yet in the hands of the
judges, when the respondent wrote the
second letter. We cannot escape the
conclusion that the writing of this letter
was grossly unprofessional. What was
the purpose Of the respondent in writ
ing the letter at the time 1t was writ
ten? And what new or additional In
formation did he have which would give
him the faintest excuse for writing?
1T Is stated in the letter that upon
further inquiry this statement Tin re-
gard to hand down of the opinion) was
confirmed by other gentlemen.w who were
then present in court This Is mani
festly wrong, because the respondent in
his answer, in his testimony and in his
final arguments states distinctly that he
could not name or recall anybody who
gave him such information, and that
the only foundation for the statement
was q faint recollection he had of a re-
mark made by somebody while he was
passing through the court room. He
did not pay sufficient attention to the
person to remember who he was.
MOTIVE OF THE WRITER.
I'VE may safely conclude then that
there was no information in his pos
session which would be likely to move
him to write the letter. What motive
could the writer of such a letter have
unless 1t was to influence and prejudice
the disposition of case pending in the
hands of the Judges? An analysis of
the letter will show that 1t reflects upon
the official honesty and integrity of the
judge to whom 1t was written. 1t be-
gins with a protestation of friendship
and Immediately suggests unfair treat
ment at his hands, the unfair treat
ment consisting in deciding a case once,
Withdrawing the opinion at the instance
of the plaintiff and Mr.. Kasson, and
over to another judge to decide pre-
sumably in another way.
ITO say of judge that he Is not Just
or fair in the performance Of his ofii-
cial duty is to accuse him of the gravest
offense, and to say that he withdraws
| a decision in favor of the defendant at
| the instance of the plaintiff in the case,
| coupled with the insinuation that the
| case was to be turned over to another
| judge for another decision, Is a serious
accusation, directly affecting the honor
. and integrity Of the judiciary. The con-
duct of an attorney who makes such ac-
cusations is in violation Of his DUTY and
oath and is in contempt and derogation
, of the administration of justice. We
are satisfied from the evidence that the
! specifica tionS which We're the basis OF
the rule in this case are fully sustained
objection was made by the respond
ent to the introduction of testimony re-
! lating to other attacks made by him
| upon other members CT this court. We
| considered the evidence pertinent on
| two grounds: First, as showing the
motive and animus of the respondent In
writing the letters In question; and Sec
Ond, as matter appealing to the discre-
! ton of the court in fixing the penalty tC
be imposed upon the respondent in case
the charges against him were sus-
tained. The testimony appeared to us
to be particularly relevant when we
considered that the case of Burns VS.
, Smith and Jennings, about which the
! letters were written, arose out of the
eases Of Jennings VS.. the Lehigh Valley
Railroad company, and that the at.
tacks made upon the other members
of the court by the respondent were
made by him in the prosecution OF
these latter cases, Briefly stated, the
evidence d!scloses the following facts
THE TRIAL IN 1892.
| "In Seutember 1892 the case of Japes
Jennings was on trial before the late
Judge Connolly. When the jury rem.
dered their verdict it was immedia tely
set aside by the trial judge, for reasons
that appeared just to him. Some tim,
after the death OF Judge Connolly, the
respondent, as attorney for Jennings
charged the late Judge with having en-.
tered into corrupt agreement with
one Of the defendants attorneys. by
which the verdict aforesaid was to bt
set aside. When this chearge was frs