Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1904-10-20

JuuSS hIduS uiOSJ lOuily dDuoCu Out
the court itself was attacked, its mo-
tives impugned and the honesty and
fairness of it's decisions were openly
questioned. Owing to the character OF
the charges made against Judge kraus
and the court, and the language in
which these charges were clothed we
do not feel at liberty to repeat hem
mere, but merely desire to refer to
them as they are spread upon the rec
ords in our reasons or foundations for
the rule granted in this case, where |
under a sense of duty we felt Compel |
ell to have them put down. Had this
attack been made by Mr. Scouten upon
Judge kraus when there were no per
| sons present to near the same. it would
not have been so fragrant and great an
insult To the Judge and the court, nor
50 farrcaching in its consequences tol
the public. but at the time the attack
began there We're several persons,
members of the bar and others. in the
corridor who could not avoid hearing
| il and the loud and boisterous manner
! OF Mr.. Scouten attracted more persons
to listen to the disgraceful TRADE. This
attack occurred some time before the
court adjourned for noon. And when
the noon recess came Mr.. Sc0uten
again followed Judge Kraus. this time
into tEe judges chambers adjoining the
court room where the two associate
| judges had gone, and again began an
| attack upon Judge Kraus. or at least
was using loud, unpleasant and abusive
lan2rage. and when ordered out of this
room he stepped back into the court
room. and then violently and bolster
ously. vilely abused Judge Kraus and
also the court and court rules. and
among other things dared Judge kraus
! to come down into the court yard to
engage in personal combat with
him.
It is clear that the court has the un-
doubted right to strike an attorney
| from the rolls for attacking or insult
! ing judge on account OF any ruling or
decision made in court If the court
has this right. and if it is their duty as
was intimated by Justice Field TO act
in such cases. surely no one can for
one moment contend that the present
case Is not one demanding the actlon
of the court In all the cases reported
none can be found that in any degree
approaches this one for insulting and
abusive language, or for the extent to
which the same was carried even to
the extent of threatening personal
chastisement upon the judge. Indeed
the respondent has virtually relieved
us of all question as to the proprlcty OF
| the action of the court by coming into
court and expressly admitting that the
| court could not in Justice to itself and
! to the judiciary have done less than II
! has done and that the otfense deserves
that this rule be made absolute. But
! he seeks to avoid the Judgment of the
court, that he virtually admits Justice
demands by humbly apologizinS - the
court and to Judge kraus for his con
| duct. and throws himself upon the
mercy of the court, asking us 20 for
| give his shortcomings and offenSes. and
promising to do differently i'll The fu-
| tur2.
No one can for one moment question
that the apology is as full and com
plete as able and astute counsel could
make it, And were we convinced il
came from the heart. and was prompt
ed and made because his conscience
upbraided him for the great wrong and
insult he had put upon the court, and
would not permit him to rest until he
| had made the fullest apology and the
most ample amends for such conduct,
We should feel disposed to accept Il
and dismiss this rule with an admonl-
tiou to the respondent that i'll future
| he must so conduct himself that no fur-
| thcr or future occasion should ever
arise of a similar character While we
have the greatest respect for any per
son who. upon being convinced Of an
error, takes the first opportunity to
| apologize and make amends for the
wrong done or the injury committed
because he believes justice, fair deal
| ing and honesty demand he should do
| So We have no respect for the person
L., l.
or render a just and proper amend for
wrong done or an injury comE'ltted
until he is convinced such a course il
necessary to save him from punish
ment Tor such conduct. 4 person who
makes an apology because he fears
| that unless he does<So he will receive
G4oriied punishment, is hypocrite and
coward. and an apology wrunS from
him in that way is entitled to no merit
or consideration.
| Let us then consider the cifcum-
stances in this case in order - see
what weight or consideration we
ought to give this apology and appeal
! for mercy On October II, the occur
/ renee took place that is the foundation
for this rule. The first attack was in
! the forenoon. Some forty-five or sixty
minutes after this attack, after fnll op-
| portunity To cool and reflect upon his
conduct. the respondent renewed the
attack and continued the same abuse.
Nothing was done by the court Ill the
matter until the afternoon of the 25th
OF the same month, when the entry Of
| the facts in the case was made and the
present rule granted. Court had been
in session that forenoon, and the re-
| spondent had been present in court
| matters hafnra the cOurt Yet
he maze no attempt to apologize or in
any way show any regret for his con-
duct. Court was again i'll session on
November t. and II was generally
known that the above rule had been
granted and upon what it was fornded,
although il had not then been served
unOn the resnOndent and then no sign |