The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1904-12-02
Nh. oEcrL,s oAkp.

We pBblieh elsewhere 10 this issue q
card from Mr.. Lloyd Cecil. giving hls
statement Of the trouble between him
self and Judge Holding, and the causes
leading up to il.
Whatever may be our personal rels-
tons, We wish the public to understand
that our editorial discussion of this
matter is entirely impersoual We are
not taking sides between men. We are
taking the side OF the Law, the Court
and the Judge.
The whole trouble grows out OF the
utter misIonception Mr.. Cecil has OF
his rights and privileges and duties as
"gentleman." a "citizeu" and "tax
payers" and his seeming utter inability
to differentiate between the official acts
of judge and the personal acts of a
man.
Whatever may be MIR. Cecil's faults
as old Ben Butler said of himself '.he
is not a fool" And it is really strange
that he should seek to put himself be-
fore the public in the light in which his
card reveals him, as a man harboring
in his heart revenge, hate and ma!ace,
and "watching very carefully for the
Judge" to "settle With him. svery
time he came to town. Such revenge
full watching as that, lie, in the eyes of the
law, almost equal to lying in wait for
a man, and certainly will not mitigate
Mr.. Cecil's offense.
The idea that 'any gentleman has
the right and that it is his bounden
duty to interrupt the Court proceedings
by talking back at the lawyer who may,
in the argument of a case, comment !
ever so unfairly upon his testimony, is |
just as far from a correct view as anyone |
could take. Precisely the contrary is
true. 1t is the duty of every gentleman
to have more regard for the law of the
land and the dignity and decorum of the
courts of the land, than to do any such
thing. If the lawyer, In the examina-
ticn of witness or in the argument of
case, goes beyond the proprieties, he is
responsible for what he says,
and there is no law that protects him,
more than any other citizen, outside the
presence Of the Court, 1t was not pro
section to the lawyer the Court was Civ
ng in this case. 1t was protection to
he Court. 1t would have been the
,ame il the offender had been talking to
he janitor of the building, or to any
,ther person, in manner SO as to inter ,
'upt the proceedings of the Court. .
What would become of order and digni- ,
" and decorum in the court room if ,
very "citizen ana taxpayer should :
'laim the privilege and play the role Mr.. :
Jecll did in the case for which he was
ined?
But" says Mr.. Cecil, "the fine i'm. .
'osed upon me was unjust" and for +
hat he proposed to '.settle with the q
Judge" That same spirit in crowd is :
that leads mob, and mob law leads to !.
narchy. Ii the individual may review .
nd punish the acts of the Judge, a =.
lumber OF individuals may review and =
unish the acts of jury. If in the eyes :,
I partisan crowd the Judge and jury T
0 wrong; If the crowd want one Of their :
lumber to talk back at the lawyer, or !
the Court, and he is 'unjustly" de- =
led that priyilege-which Mr.. Cecil :,
,ems to think is guaranteed under the !,
-then they will six him" :,
hen the judge gets off the Bench, or n
if their numbers be large :,
lough they will six him. then and 90
ere. :,
From any standpoint, the assault of :
i individual upon Judge, for pure or
judicial and official act, is utterly in .,
feasible and entirely inexcusable; and oc
all the comment this case has given 10
10 to, we have yet to hear one single 90
IN commend the assault, or in the least 81
even to palliate it; it meets with the I'll
tspoken, earnest, and in many cases IN
B Incorporate condemnation of the .h
bic at large. Ex