Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1904-10-20
Affirmed by the Supreme
Court OF PENNSYLVANIA.

opinion by Mr.. Justice Mitchell. May
&c, 1898:
The appellant was disbarred for
using very foul and abusive language
involving serious charges against his
integrity to one of the associate Judges
OF the court below, during a session of
the court, though outside of the court
room. The court subsequently entered 4
rule upon him to show cause wry his
name should not be struck from the
roll of attorneys. and the appellant
then filed a written apology which the
learned president Judge considered
would have been sufficient at Least to
mitigate the punishment had il not
been so long delayed The rule was
made absolute, and the appellant now
comes before us admitting his mscon-
duct but claiming that the pu:. .ishment
is excessive.
There is no question of the iurisdic-
ton of the court below The bar have
great liberty and high privileges in the
assertion of their clients rights as
they view them, but on the other hand
they have equal obligations as officers
in the administration of justice and
no duty is more fundamental more un-
renting or more imperative than that
of respectful subordinaton To the
court. The foundation of liberty under
our system of government is respect
for the law as officially pronounced.
The counsel in any case may or may
not be an ADLER or more learned lawyer
than the judge. and it may tax MS pa
tience and his temper to submit 10 rul-
lngS which he regards as incorrect but
discipline and Self-restraint are as
necessary TO the orderly administra
tlon Of justice as they are to the effec-
uvencSs of an army. The decisions of
the Judge must be obeyed because he
is the tribunal appointed to decide, and
the bar should at all times be the fore
most in rendering respectful submis-
sion.
That the conduct of the appellant
was most serious breach of discipline
is not denied, and his appeal is prac-
tically for mercy. Mercy however is
not the prerogative of this court. and
the considerations which might have
moved the court below in that respect
are not for us to entertain The pun
ishment of appellant is severe, in view
OF the fact that 1t involves no moral
turpitude, but only infirmity of temper
III the dlSbarment were meant to le ir-
reVocable we might have some uoubt
whether it would not exceed the limit
of legitimate discretion, but We OBJ
serve the remarks of the learned pres
ident judge that the respondent Las it
in his power TO SO live and conduct
himself as TO show and convince all
who know him of his determination to
govern his temper and tongue, and
when he has by long persistence IN this
course shown to us that he has sue
ceeded, and can conduct himself. in al,
respects, properly and respectfully. we
shall cheerfully hear his application
for readmiSsion and act favorably
thereon" This is a clear indication
that the court below regarded It's ac-
tion rather in the light of suspension
than Of permanent disbarmenr, and
intended to treat the appellant with as
much leniency as the preservation OF
necessary discipline would admit. We
have no reason to suppose that, with
proper behavior on the part of appel
liant. the period of probation will he
unduly prolonged More than that he
cannot fairly ask.
Order affirmed